UNITED STATES V. TENNESSEE
925 F.Supp. 1292 (W.D. Tn. 1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a determination regarding compliance by the State of
Tennessee, Governor Sundquist, Commissioner Cardwell, and Superintendent Jackson with the
provisions of the Emergency Order of June 30, 1995 and the Preliminary Injunction of July
10, 1995.
FACTS: The Arlington Developmental Center is a state operated, residential mental
retardation facility housing 383 developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington,
Tennessee. ADC's population consists primarily of individuals currently assessed as severely
or profoundly retarded or developmentally disabled, some of whom have associated physical
handicaps, and mental or behavioral problems. The federal government pays sixty-six per cent
of the costs of operation of this facility, with the State of Tennessee paying the remaining
thirty-four per cent. The United States and the State of Tennessee have been in dispute
regarding conditions at ADC since 1990. On January 21, 1992, the United States (P) filed
this action against the State of Tennessee (D) and Arlington Developmental Center, pursuant
to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997-1997j (1988). The
Court held that conditions at ADC were in violation of the rights of its residents under the
United States Constitution. The Court entered a preliminary injunction and established a
schedule for submittal of a remedial plan by D. As a result of that procedure, P and D
negotiated a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at ADC. At an April 10, 1995,
hearing, the Court determined that the State had achieved full compliance with only five of
the sixty-five self-imposed deadlines within the first ninety-day period. D offered a Plan
of Correction and stipulated to it. The record supports the conclusion that, between April
10, 1995, and June 30, 1995, the State abandoned its goal of achieving compliance with its
own Stipulated Remedial Order and its own Plan of Correction. Several patient deaths and the
second compliance inspection by the Monitor and her Developmental Medicine Expert on June
27-30, 1995, led P and the Monitor to request an Emergency Order on June 30, 1995. D
acknowledged that the facts constituting an emergency existed, and agreed to the Emergency
Order requirements. At the end of the July 10, 1995, hearing, additional time to achieve
compliance with the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction provisions was granted, and a
compliance hearing was scheduled for August 9, 1995. At the hearing on August 9, 1995, clear
and convincing proof was presented by P that D still was not in compliance with five of the
provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. P insisted, in closing
argument, that D be found in contempt based on its failure to comply with remedial
provisions to which it had agreed. The United States left the sanctions to be imposed to the
discretion of the Court. The Court found the State in contempt and ordered minimal coercive
and remedial sanctions to assure that D would accomplish the five emergency provisions which
were agreed to on June 30, 1995. Besides daily monetary sanctions, the Commissioner was
required to spend every fourth weekend at ADC until D was in full compliance with the five
emergency remedial provisions to which it had agreed on June 30, 1995, but which, as of
August 9, 1995, it had not done.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment