P.D. v. Department of Developmental Services, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-013-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       12‑P‑1460                                                                             Appeals Court   P.D.[1]  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES & another.[2] No. 12‑P‑1460. Middlesex.     June 11, 2013.  ‑  February 18, 2014. Present:  Berry, Katzmann, & Rubin, JJ.   Department of Developmental Services.  Intellectually Disabled Person.  Administrative Law, Hearing, Findings, Substantial evidence.  Notice.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 10, 2011.   The case was heard by Kathe M. Tuttman, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Stephen M. Sheehy for the plaintiff. Carrie Benedon, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.     BERRY, J.  This involuntary transfer case concerns a proposal by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to move P.D., a profoundly intellectually disabled man, from his home at the Fernald Developmental Center (FDC) to Heffron Hall B, apartment 3 (apartment 3) at the Wrentham Developmental Center (WDC).  After determining that the transfer would result in improved services and quality of life for P.D. and be in his best interest, an administrative magistrate of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) approved the transfer.  See G. L. c. 123B, § 3.  The guardians appeal from a Superior Court judgment affirming that decision.  Concluding, as we do, that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and free from error of law, we affirm. Substantial evidence.  The magistrate’s ultimate conclusion that the transfer would result in improved services and quality of life for P.D. was supported by substantial evidence.  See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7); G.R. v. Department of Developmental Servs., ante at         (2013).  In determining whether the transfer should proceed as in P.D.’s best interest, the magistrate properly examined the over-all picture, comparing the supports and services available at the respective facilities to meet P.D.’s unique needs.  He also carefully considered the guardians’ many objections, as required by the statute, and rejected them as invalid or unreviewable, or valid but outweighed by other factors or adequately addressed by DDS. P.D. has lived at FDC for most of his life.  His primary medical and psychiatric issues are sever pica (ingesting nonfood items), skin picking, hyperactivity, a swallowing disorder, and both obsessive-compulsive disorder and bipolar disorder.  These conditions are addressed in his individual support/service plan (ISP). In his decision, the magistrate identified the seven distinct improvements in services and quality of life that DDS asserted would be available to P.D. at […]

Read more...