August 2010 Edition - Access Press

Page 1

www.accesspress.org

Inside

History “We're remarkable creatures in the ways we can adapt. As long as there's no isolation, as long as there's freedom to try things and decide for yourself what you want to do. As long as you're defining your own limits.”

■ MnDHO changes–pg 3 ■ Nominations due–pg 4 ■ Elders’ wisdom–pg 11

— Ed Roberts

in the making

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Mpls. MN Permit No. 4766 Address Service Requested

Volume 21, Number 8

Minnesota’s Disability

Community Newspaper

August 10, 2010

Hundreds celebrate the ADA, eye the challenges ahead by Jane McClure Celebrating past accomplishments while looking at the challenges ahead was the theme of Minnesota’s 20th anniversary celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). More than 750 people flocked to Nicollet Island Pavilion July 26 to mark the anniversary. Entertainers Josh Blue and Nic Zapko, elected officials and people with disabilities were featured, as were information displays by numerous Minnesota organizations run for and by persons with disabilities. “There’s much to celebrate – there’s much that needs to be done,” Dave Durenberger told the crowd. The former U.S. Senator recalled the efforts needed to pass the ADA two decades ago, saying the fed-

eral legislation has roots in Minnesota law and policy that date back more than 50 years. He said he was proud to have been involved in such an effort while serving in Congress. But he also noted that that happened at a much less politically divisive time. Two senators, Robert Dole of Kansas and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, were instrumental in passing the ADA. Both have disabilities, said Durenberger. “They had only two arms between them, but they used them to make civil rights for all of us a possibility.” Many people, businesses and advocacy groups said the ADA couldn’t be passed for costs and practicality reasons. Durenberger recalled being told that companies and gov-

ernment couldn’t afford to make the changes outlined in the ADA. His response? “We can’t afford not to do it.” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar also recalled the ADA’s beginnings, saying the act “knocked down the shameful wall of exclusion.” She, Durenberger and other elected officials who spoke praised Minnesota for leading the nation in physical accessibility improvements. More needs to be done. “The dream of equality under the law is still an unfinished reality,” she said. Klobuchar also took time to recognize one of her predecessors, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was a champion of disability rights. ADA - cont. on p. 14

With captioning in the background, Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin addressed in the crowd at the ADA celebration on the importance of jobs and public accommodation. See more photos on pages eight and nine. Photo by Ali Mohamed

METO case continues to make its way through courts by Jane McClure More than a year after it was filed, a civil lawsuit against the state of Minnesota, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options (METO) program and METO staff continues to make its way through the U.S. District Court system. Former patients of the facility and their family members continue to push for an end to the use of restraints and seclusion as means of controlling patient behavior. On Aug. 30, attorneys for the three families involved in the case will argue in U.S. District Court for a temporary injunction that would prohibit the use of various types of restraints and the use of seclusion at METO. The motion for the injunction was filed in midJuly and is just one of many actions taken in the case in recent weeks. Court documents state that “Because Defendants have refused to stop the use of seclusion and restraints, Plaintiffs request this Court promptly issue a preliminary injunction immediately enjoining any fur-

ther use of seclusion and restraints on residents of the METO program, or any successor program, including mechanical restraints, manual restraints, prone restraint, seclusion, individual isolation, electroconvulsive therapy and chemical restraints.” The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of the federal civil and constitutional rights of people with developmental disabilities abused at METO, asks the court to enter an injunction against METO to prohibit its restraint and seclusion practices, and declare as unconstitutional the Department of Human Services’ position that restraint is permitted against people with developmental disabilities. METO has long been a topic of scrutiny for the disability community. Its practices have been closely monitored by the Minnesota Disability Law Center, parents and family members of residents, and a number of disability rights, advocacy and service provider organizations.

Use of restraints and placement of patients in seclusion at METO are at the heart of the ongoing lawsuit, which was filed July 10, 2009 in U.S. Federal District Court in St. Paul. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of people with developmental disabilities and their families. Three of the plaintiffs were restrained at METO, a state mental health treatment facility in Cambridge. METO is a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Court documents state that staff there routinely restrained patients in a prone face-down position and placed them in metal handcuffs and leg hobbles at risk of injury, causing them to struggle, cry and yell once they were in the restraints. METO also placed patients in seclusion rooms for extended time periods, and deprived them of visits from family members. The lawsuit also states that restraints and seclusion were used by METO as a practice of behavior modification, coercion, discipline, convenience

and retaliation. METO staff allegedly restrained some patients hundreds of times, and used these tactics for conduct as benign as touching a pizza box, not staying within eyesight of staff, or even after patients were calmly eating a snack or watching television. State officials have argued that restraint of patients at METO is necessary. But those who speak for the families say that their case is one about human dignity and respect for those with developmental disabilities. Shamus O’Meara, a partner with the law firm of Johnson & Condon, P.A., represents the three families, the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “It’s ironic that we were filing motions in this case on July 26, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” said O’Meara. “It shows that we still have a long way to go.” The families involved are the Jensen, Brinker/Allen and Jacobs families. The Jensens were the initial plaintiffs. The Brinker/Allens and Jacobs

families joined the case later. All allege abuse of their children at METO, through use of restraints as well as seclusion. They contend that incidents that promoted such treatment were minor and should have been handled differently. One young man had his arm broken and his family claims he was denied medical attention and proper treatment for a time. Over the past several months various motions as well as a case settlement have been debated. At one point the state asked for more time to file an answer and to file a response to the complaint. But on June 29 Judge Franklin Noel denied that request, stating in court documents, “This case has been pending almost a year. Based upon repeated assurances that the parties were making progress in reaching a settlement, the Court postponed adopting a Pretrial Schedule until May 2010. In their current stipulation, filed only 5 days before the first due date in the Pretrial Schedule adopted on May 12, 2010, the

parties again report significant progress in settlement negotiations. The only suggestion the parties make regarding the substance of their progress is that they were ‘discussing use of a mediator.’ At the scheduling conference in May, the Court had difficulty understanding the parties’ vastly different views of this case, in part because the Defendants have yet to answer the complaint. Although the parties contend in their stipulation that the filing of an answer will be ‘counter productive to the negotiations’, the Court cannot conceive of how the filing of an answer would in any way prejudice settlement negotiations. This case is almost a year old, and the Court doesn’t even know what the issues are, as Defendant has not yet answered the complaint.” Noel continued, “If Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs’ complaint has merit, it should settle. If not, it must answer, so that issues in dispute can be joined. The parties request to METO - cont. on p. 14


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
August 2010 Edition - Access Press by Access Press - Issuu