Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Bogard v. Wright
No. 88 C 2414 (N.D. Ill. filed May 30, 1997). ; Clearinghouse Number: 43370
Description
Monitor’s Appointment Extended to Track Compliance with Consent Decree on Placing Developmentally Disabled in Nursing Facilities
Abstract
The district court has extended a court monitor’s appointment
for three years to oversee defendant Illinois health and welfare
agencies’ compliance with a consent decree because of recent
reports of noncompliance. The consent decree was entered in a class
action charging that defendants failed to provide appropriate
placements and services to developmentally disabled residents of
nursing homes. Pursuant to the decree, defendants were to provide
case coordination services, community placement, choices in
residence, individual service plans, adaptive equipment,
evaluations and services, and safety and protection. The decree
also required that a court monitor with expertise in developmental
disabilities be appointed to oversee and facilitate compliance.
Plaintiffs claimed that two recent reports documented noncompliance
with the decree’s requirements for case coordination
services, community placement, specialized services, and adaptive
equipment. Plaintiffs notified defendants of noncompliance, and the
parties attempted to negotiate. When defendants ceased negotiation,
plaintiffs moved to extend the monitor’s appointment for
three years. The court granted the extension; it noted that
defendants did not (1) contest the reports on noncompliance until
after they refused to negotiate, (2) dispute that the goals of the
decree had not been achieved, or (3) offer an alternative to track
compliance. Defendants could not show that the extension would
cause harm.
Additional Information
Files
- Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to the consent decree and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 to extend the monitor's appointment for three years and for other relief
- Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for extension of monitor's appointment and other relief
- Plaintiffs' reply to defendants' response to motion for extension of monitor's appointment for three years and for other relief
