Emily Q, et al v. Diane Bonta, et al
Filing
643
ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTERS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND TERMINATING JURISDICTION by Judge A. Howard Matz. GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, THE COURT ORDERS: The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the SpecialMaster in his Final Repo rt. Defendant Director of the Department of Health Care Services, and the director or directors of any successor entity or entities, shall continue to comply with the post-termination terms of the Nine Point Plan and transition plan. Nothing in this order shall preclude subsequent litigation regarding the obligations ofcounties and county mental health plans to provide TBS. Monies remaining in the Special Services Fund in the approximate amount of $198,394.63 shall remain on deposit with th e California Institute for Mental Health or any successor entity, to support TBS trainings, quality improvement activities, data review, and continued maintenance of public TBS data dashboards. Jurisdiction over this matter is terminated, except that the Court reserves jurisdiction over issues pertaining to Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, and the Special Masters final amended budget. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ISMAEL A. CASTRO
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MELINDA VAUGHN
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 120446
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 324-7873
Fax: (916) 324-5567
E-mail: Melinda.Vaughn@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
JS-6
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CV 98-4181 AHM (AJWx)
EMILY Q., et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER ADOPTING
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
TERMINATING JURISDICTION
DIANA BONTA, et al.,
[No Hearing Required]
Defendant. Judge: The Honorable A. Howard Matz
Courtroom: 14
20
ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND TERMINATING JURISDICTION
21
The Special Master, Richard Saletta, filed a Final Report in Response to
22
Court’s Order Appointing Special Master (Final Report). (Docket No. 629.) The
23
matter was heard before the Honorable A. Howard Matz on June 15, 2011.
24
Appearing for the Plaintiffs were Melinda Bird, Disability Rights California, Robert
25
D. Newman, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and James Preis, Mental Health
26
Advocacy Services. Appearing for the Defendant was Melinda Vaughn, Deputy
27
Attorney General, for Kamala D. Harris, California Attorney General. The Special
28
1
1
2
Master was present for the hearing. There were no objections to the Special
Master’s Final Report.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposal for use of certain unclaimed monies
from a fund that was established by the Amended Judgment and Permanent
Injunction (Amended Judgment) for “special services” to youth between the ages of
21 and 25 who were former class members (Special Services Fund). (Docket Nos.
291, 631.) The Court considered Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ proposal,
namely, that monies in the Special Services Fund should be returned to the State
General Fund.
10
The Court finds:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1.
As a result of the Court’s order appointing Richard Saletta as Special
Master (Docket No. 531), a Nine Point Plan (Plan) was approved by the Court on
November 14, 2008. (Docket No. 552.) Under the Plan, Defendant agreed to do
the following: Point One - reduce administrative requirements for providing
Therapeutic Behavioral Services (“TBS”); Point Two - clarify eligibility
requirements for TBS; Point Three – establish an accountability process and
structure for TBS planning and decision-making; Point Four – establish a TBS best
practices approach by developing a manual on TBS coordination of care and best
practices; Point Five – promote a multi-agency coordination strategy that includes a
strategy to engage youth and families; Point Six – develop a statewide TBS training
program; Point Seven – develop and promote technical assistance manuals on TBS
documentation and best practices; Point Eight – develop an outreach strategy using
the Emily Q./TBS web page on the website of California Department of Mental
Health (“CDMH”); Point Nine – develop an exit plan and criteria for termination of
jurisdiction.
///
///
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2.
Point Nine of the Plan, the criteria for court exit from jurisdiction, was
approved by the Court on April 23, 2009. (Docket No. 573.) The Exit Criteria
required that the 27 large and medium-sized Mental Health Plans (MHPs) engage in
a significant effort to increase TBS utilization and improve TBS quality, and
engage decision-makers and stakeholders. The Exit Criteria set a TBS utilization
benchmark of four percent, calculated based on the number of youth receiving TBS
(or equivalent services) divided by the number of youth receiving EPSDT mental
health services, and required that two-thirds (18) of the large and medium-sized
MHPs meet the four percent benchmark. The Exit Criteria could be satisfied if a
county was on a trajectory to reach the four percent benchmark no later than
June 30, 2012.
3.
In his Final Report, the Special Master found that Defendant has
successfully implemented and completed the requirements in the first eight points
of the Plan. The Special Master also found that 18 of the 27 large and mediumsized MHPs had met or were on a trajectory to meet the 4% TBS benchmark based
on increases in TBS or TBS equivalent services. The Special Master certified that
these MHPs also met other requirements, including a showing that these increases
are sustainable. Although the Exit Criteria did not call for statewide attainment of
the four percent benchmark, the Special Master found that TBS utilization had
increased from 1.68% in 2005 to 3.81% in 2010, which reflects the statewide effort
of all 56 MHPs to increase TBS utilization.
4.
In conjunction with Point Nine of the Plan, CDMH filed a transition plan
with the Court, describing its plan for continued post-termination activities.
(Docket No. 622.)
5.
Defendant and the California Department of Mental Health have
completed the requirements of the Nine-Point Plan and the terms of the Amended
Judgment have been satisfied.
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6.
The purposes of Paragraph 19 of the Amended Judgment will be served
by adopting Plaintiff’s proposal for the Special Services Fund, that the monies be
used to support statewide Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) trainings, quality
improvement activities, data review, and continued maintenance of public TBS data
dashboards.
7.
It is appropriate for the Court to terminate jurisdiction, with the exception
of matters related to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and the Special Master’s
amended budget.
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, THE COURT ORDERS:
1.
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Special
Master in his Final Report.
2.
Defendant Director of the Department of Health Care Services, and the
director or directors of any successor entity or entities, shall continue to comply
with the post-termination terms of the Nine Point Plan and transition plan. Nothing
in this order shall preclude subsequent litigation regarding the obligations of
counties and county mental health plans to provide TBS.
3.
Monies remaining in the Special Services Fund in the approximate
amount of $198,394.63 shall remain on deposit with the California Institute for
Mental Health (“CIMH”), for use by CDMH, or any successor entity, to support
TBS trainings, quality improvement activities, data review, and continued
maintenance of public TBS data dashboards. CDMH, or any successor entity, shall
have discretion over use of the monies in the Special Services Fund, provided that
they are used solely for one or more of the following activities pertaining to TBS:
trainings, quality improvement activities, data review, and continued maintenance
of public TBS data dashboards. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide a copy of this
Order to CIMH.
27
28
4
1
2
3
4.
Jurisdiction over this matter is terminated, except that the Court reserves
jurisdiction over issues pertaining to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and the
Special Master’s final amended budget.
4
5
6
Date: September 14, 2011
7
8
9
10
JS-6
_____________________________
A. Howard Matz
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?