Thank you for this post and for your effort to set the record straight about H.R. 1255.
It is simply wrong to say that H.R. 1255 restricts choice. Instead, if passed, H.R. 1255 would restore the rights of individuals and their legal guardians to choose their attorneys and not be forced into lawsuits that threaten the very existence of their homes.
Specifically H.R. 1255 would provide residents of Medicaid licensed ICFs/MR, and where judicially appointed, their legal guardians, with the right to be notified of lawsuits involving their homes before they are filed, and provide a time limited opportunity to opt out of the lawsuit (or do nothing and join in). Following a 90 day period the lawsuit could go forward on behalf of a consenting class.
For the past 15 years, the lawsuits that would be impacted by H.R. 1255 have been filed ONLY to downsize and close facilities; conditions of care have NOT been at issue in these lawsuits.
Visit http://www.vor.net if you have any additional questions. (To go there, click above on the post's title.)
Please contact your Representatives in Congress to co-sponsor this bill.
Thank you!
Friday, June 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great thanks to Tamie for making HR1255 so clear!
ReplyDeleteSince introducing this subject, it has been brought to my attention that the National Disability Rights Network (nDRN), is being touted as opposing the bill. Hmmm. Does the farmer ask the fox how he thinks the chickens should be protected?
No other lawyers come to mind who could have made this critical legislation necessary! Rereading Tamie's explanation, whose lawsuits but NDRN's could parents and guardians be needing to be aware of and have the CHOICE to opt out of in order to protect the homes of their loved ones?
HR1255 provides those critical safeguards.
Do please contact your congress-people; tell them how important this bill is and request their sponsorship of it! In all truth, you could tell them, "With this bill, nobody loses except lawyers who would co-opt unwilling participation in lawsuits."
TERRI ANDERSON writes:
ReplyDeleteI must confess, I don’t BLOG. However, there is always the exception to the rule. As a parent/guardian, I find Ms. Stadden’s statements in “Remarks from The ARC” regarding H.R. 1255, insulting.
This bill WILL NOT “limit the ability of protection & advocacy agencies to bring class action lawsuits regarding institutions for people with developmental disabilities”.
It WILL allow families (parents & guardians) to be the DECISION-MAKER for those who are unable to do so, themselves. This was a defining element when the DD Act was written. Families and guardians, not unknown lawyers, should be the ones making choices for those who cannot. As a parent/guardian, would you allow a toddler to play in the street? Of course, you wouldn’t. Allow me the same right to protect my son.
This bill will require federally funded Protection and Advocacy (a DD Act program) to give me, as parent/guardian, the opportunity to “opt out” of class action lawsuits that target my family member’s home (an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation (ICFs/MR). As a parent/guardian, I think I should be the one to decide – not a federally-paid attorney – whether my son is involved in a lawsuit regarding his home.
Why would any logical person assume an unknown attorney would know the wants & needs of my adult child better than I? Further, this bill would inform me of the possibility of a lawsuit, rather than notifying me of the final court decision of such a court action.
Ms. Stadden further offends by stating, “it is a violation of an individual’s civil rights to institutionalize them BECAUSE IT IS EASIER FOR THE GUARDIAN”. “One size fits all” has never applied to individuals with disabilities!
The Olmstead Decision affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to live in their communities, if that is their choice. Again, would you allow a toddler to choose living in a tree-house, rather than in a safe, healthy environment? Of course, you wouldn’t.
Until you walk in my shoes, Ms Stadden, make no assumptions as to why decisions have been made and the “supposed” ease that accompanied those decisions.
Terri Anderson
Woodinville
Posted by Terri's request