E.G. v. Department of Developmental Services, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-014-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑1560                                                                             Appeals Court   E.G.[1]  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES & another.[2] No. 12‑P‑1560. 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 July 7, 2011.   The case was heard by Bruce R. Henry, 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.  The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) seeks to transfer E.G., a profoundly intellectually disabled individual, from the Fernald Developmental Center (FDC) to the Wrentham Developmental Center (WDC).[3]  E.G.’s guardians oppose the transfer.  Following an adjudicatory hearing on the guardians’ objections, an administrative magistrate of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) concluded that the proposed transfer met the requirements of the State statutory standard, allowing it to proceed.  See G. L. c. 123B, § 3.  A judge of the Superior Court subsequently affirmed DALA’s decision.  See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).  We affirm. E.G. currently resides at Cottage 12B on the FDC campus with three other individuals.  DDS’s plan calls for E.G. to be reunited with a number of his former longterm housemates at Heffron Hall B, apartment 3 at WDC (apartment 3).  Although E.G. does not interact with his peers, he successfully lived with that peer group for over twenty-five years. We consider the claims and issues that are unique to E.G.’s individual circumstances. A finding that the transfer was in E.G.’s best interest was supported by substantial evidence.  The vision section of E.G.’s 2009-2010 individual service/support plan (ISP) identifies the ability “to safely move about his home and workplace” as a hope and dream of the future, and “a stable home” as an aspect of his membership in the community.  The living space at apartment 3, as compared to that at FDC, is indisputably smaller.  Contrary to the guardians’ assertions, however, the magistrate credited the testimony from DDS’s witnesses that the personal space at apartment 3 would be adequate to meet E.G.’s needs.  As the magistrate noted, familiar psychology staff will be assigned to E.G. at apartment 3, and they, in conjunction with familiar direct care workers who have transferred […]

Read more...