M.D. v. Department of Developmental Services, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-047-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑241                                        Appeals Court   M.D.[1]  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES[2] & another.[3]     No. 12‑P‑241. Middlesex.     September 18, 2012.  ‑  April 1, 2013. Present:  Berry, Brown, & Agnes, JJ.   Department of Developmental Services.  Intellectually Disabled Person.  Administrative Law, Hearing, Agency’s interpretation of statute, Substantial evidence.  Notice.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 25, 2011.   The case was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Stephen Michael Sheehy for the plaintiff. Timothy J. Casey, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.     BROWN, J.  The Fernald Developmental Center (FDC) will be closing as an Intermediate Care Facility for Persons with Mental Retardation (ICF).  This policy decision removing a group of intellectually disabled individuals from that facility is no longer subject to review by the Federal courts. Born in 1943, M.D. is moderately intellectually disabled and suffers from severe mental illness.  She is one of the last fourteen residents of FDC, where she has lived since 1985.  At FDC, M.D. receives services and supports in accordance with the individual service plan (ISP) developed by her team.  On May 28, 2010, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) gave notice to M.D.’s guardians of its intentions to transfer her from FDC to the Wrentham Developmental Center (WDC), another ICF in the Commonwealth.  This notice is required by G. L. c. 123B, § 3, inserted by St. 1986, c. 599, § 39, (transfer statute).  Under the statute, M.D.’s guardians had forty-five days to object to the proposed transfer.  The guardians objected, and DDS then referred the case to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) for a hearing, in accordance with the statute.  An evidentiary hearing was held before an administrative magistrate, who issued a decision that included detailed findings of fact.  The administrative magistrate concluded that the transfer of M.D. to the WDC would result in improved services and quality of life and was in her best interest.  The guardians then appealed the DALA decision in Superior Court.  Review in that court was under G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).  The judge upheld DALA’s decision, and this appeal followed. This case involves the procedural schemes and safeguards associated with the transfer statute.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that (1) the magistrate appropriately declined to consider […]

Read more...