G.R. v. Department of Developmental Services, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-011-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑0951                                                                             Appeals Court   G.R.[1]  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES & another.[2] No. 12‑P‑951. 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 April 28, 2011.   The case was heard by Dennis J. Curran, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Stephen M. Sheehy for the plaintiff. Timothy J. Casey, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.       KATZMANN, J.  Through his guardian, G.R., a severely intellectually disabled individual who resides at the Fernald Developmental Center (FDC), challenges a Superior Court judge’s affirmance of the decision of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) approving his transfer to the Wrentham Developmental Center (WDC).  See G. L. c. 123B, § 3.[3]  We focus our analysis on whether the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) presented the administrative magistrate at the DALA hearing with substantial evidence to support her decision that the interfacility transfer would be in G.R.’s best interest.  After reviewing the administrative record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the magistrate’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that there is no ground to set aside the DALA’s decision.  We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court approving the DALA’s decision.  See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). 1.  Background.  At the time of the administrative hearing, G.R. was sixty-six years old.  He has lived at FDC since 1956.  G.R. is severely intellectually disabled as well as blind and deaf.  He cannot communicate verbally, although he will vocalize sometimes.   In 2003, the year that its closure was announced, FDC served 280 residents.  In November, 2010, FDC only served twenty-three residents.  There are over eighty buildings on the FDC campus, and approximately fifty are not in use.  As an older facility, FDC has extensive physical plant maintenance issues; however, funds are only available for necessary repairs, rather than renovations.  There have also been significant staffing changes associated with FDC’s closure.  From 2004 to the time of the administrative hearing, there were fifteen consolidations in residences or day programs.  Staff members have transferred to other facilities, have retired, or have been laid off. As a Ricci class member, see Ricci v. Okin, 823 F. Supp. 984 (D. […]

Read more...