Date filed: n/aⁱⁱ
Case status: Closed (Sep 1994)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA1¹⁹
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case regarding whether beneficiaries of a state attendant care program must be mentally alert. One plaintiff has TBI^b, the other has multiple sclerosis &mental; illness. Both were denied access to the program as they cannot hire & supervise attendants or manage legal/financial affairs. Progress Appeal Court found their inclusion would be a fundamental alteration of the program & “it is a case where an additional handicap…renders participation in the program ineffectual”. Further details [http://www.cms.hhs.gov/states/letters/smd72998.asp] [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby;=case&no;=940839P]

Date filed: n/aⁱⁱ
Case status: Closed (1994)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA2¹¹
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary This successful case is celebrated (along with Richard C. v. Houstoun, PA9) as a key influence in the development of deinstitutionalization efforts in Pennsylvania.¹¹

Date filed: n/aⁱⁱ
Case status: Closed (Feb 1995⁷)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA3³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary The plaintiff was confined to a nursing facility even though it was determined that she could live in the community with PAS support⁵,¹⁰. Progress Appeal Court ruled the state's failure to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate violated the ADA & the provision of waiver services would not fundamentally alter the nature of the program. Further details [http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/didario]

Date filed: n/aⁱⁱ
Case status: Closed (1997)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA4¹³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case regarding individual found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity & committed to state hospital who then sued the hospital for not treating his dyslexia in a more integrated setting. Progress Court ruled the plaintiff did not meet the ADA definition of a 'qualified person' since he had been assessed as dangerous & to treat him in the community would be a fundamental alteration of the state program as dyslexia was not treated in outpatient settings.

Date filed: n/aⁱⁱ
Case status: Closed (1997¹⁰)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA5³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary In this class action, the court ruled favorably for patients in a state psychiatric hospital who had a dual diagnosis & were seeking treatment in the community.¹⁰

Date filed: 1998¹⁰
Case status: Closed (1999)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA6²
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case regarding people living in the state hospital despite being assessed as eligible for community placement. Progress Complaint upheld. Court rejected the defense (before Olmstead) that it would be a fundamental alteration & found the state had failed to provide community services.⁵ The court reaffirmed its decision post-Olmstead.

Date filed: 1999
Case status: n/aⁱⁱ
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): n/aⁱⁱ
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA7³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Class action regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center).

Date filed: 1999
Case status: Closed
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): n/aⁱⁱ
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA8³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center). Progress Lawsuit withdrawn after the Governor announced a plan to reduce the waiting list.

Date filed: 1999
Case status: Closed (Jul 2000)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Olmstead
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA9²
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary A group of families of people with developmental disabilities brought this case to try and stop their relatives from being moved out of a facility that was to be closed (the individuals were unable to consent to this themselves). Progress Appeal Court upheld the ruling that the Olmstead decision did not mean that efforts to place people in more integrated settings can be a form of discrimination.

Date filed: Sep. 2000
Case status: Open
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Olmstead
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA10³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case regarding residents of a state nursing facility for seniors. Progress Appeal court holding pending the outcome of Frederick L appeal (PA12). The court held that it would be fundamental alteration to require the plaintiffs to be moved into the community & also provide services for others. The Court interpreted that Olmstead meant it should confine itself to examining the 'mental health' budget although it did recognize that many of the plaintiffs could be served in the community.

Date filed: Oct. 2000⁵
Case status: Closed (Oct 2002⁵)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA11³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Class action about a limit on the number of individuals served through the Person/Family-directed Supports waiver. Progress Settlement. The state will request funding to serve the number of individuals authorized in the waiver program. The Court is developing a tool for measuring reasonable promptness.

Date filed: 2001²
Case status: Open
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Olmstead
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA12³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Class action regarding plaintiffs who are institutionalized in state Hospital despite recommendation for community placement. Progress Court ruled (drawing on Williams v. Wasserman, MD) that an acceleration of community placement would increase expenditure, may reduce services to others & therefore would be a fundamental alteration. Appeal Court referred to the Olmstead decision & remanded case back to District Court as the state needed to demonstrate it has an effectively working plan to establish a fundamental alteration defense. Further details [http://www.centerforpublicrep.org/page/94546]

Date filed: Mar. 2002
Case status: Closed (Jul 2003)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA13³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Case brought (under state law & state constitution) by a coalition of agencies providing services to individuals in ICF/MR &/or the HCBS^c waiver program for people with MR/DD^a, which asks the court to order direct care staff costs to be reimbursed & updated. Progress Case dismissed. (Court found the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative options under state law).

Date filed: May. 2002
Case status: Closed (May 2004)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead ^e or Related ^f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : PA14³
Case Summary & Links to Further Details ⁱⁱⁱ:
Summary Plaintiffs are waitlisted for ICF/MR services & filed this (non-class action) case in response to a proposed reduction of the funds committed for reducing the community services wait list. Progress The court ruled that plaintiffs have no enforceable individual rights to services & the reasonable promptness requirement only applies to groups, not individuals. Following appeal, this decision was reversed.