Click here to review court decisions and settlement agreements regarding cases below.
Cooper v Secretary LA DHH and Jackson v. Gee-reached a comprehensive settlement with the State of Louisiana to remedy its failure provide individuals found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and incompetent to stand trial with inpatient psychiatric facility care and treatment that had resulted in prolonged unlawful and unconstitutional confinement in parish jails. Among other things, the settlement required the state to
- Provide all NGRI or Incompetent Individuals a Behavioral Health Assessment within five (5) calendar days of notification of an order for inpatient treatment or order of commitment to determine if they need emergency treatment.
- Admit all new NGRI or Incompetent Individuals with Emergency Mental Health Needs to a Mental Health Facility within two (2) business days following completion of a Behavioral Health Assessment.
- Admit all NGRI or Incompetent Individuals to the forensic unit at ELMHS or other mental health facility, or to an appropriate community based program within fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of an Order, except that if Defendants demonstrate that unusual and exigent circumstances make it is impossible for them to admit an NGRI or Incompetent Individual within fifteen (15) calendar days, Defendants may have up to thirty (30) calendar days to admit the NGRI or Incompetent Individual.
- Develop a plan for providing less restrictive placement options in which NGRI and Incompetent Individuals can, with the appropriate permission of the criminal court, receive clinically appropriate competency restoration or mental treatment placement options.
Perniciaro v. Lea- litigated a case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages due to injuries and violations of his constitutional rights sustained during the client’s involuntary commitment at Eastern LA Mental Health System (ELMHS), a state mental health facility located in Jackson, LA. The trial court denied the state’s claim that its employees were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law but unfortunately, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit ruled that all defendants were protected by qualified immunity.
Eric L. v. Bird- obtained Settlement agreement on behalf of children who have been placed in foster care or some other child-care arrangement outside of their homes by the Division of Children and Youth Service ("DCYS"). We had contended that the state had failed to take the required measures to maintain the integrity of plaintiffs' families where possible, to reunite removed children with their families as soon as possible, or to place them in secure, permanent homes within an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The settlement agreement provided for
- suitable training and supervision of child protective service workers and supervisors; timely assessment of reports of abuse and neglect;
- appropriate intervention with children and families to remedy identified problems;
- prompt development of permanency plans for children unable to return to their families; and
- support and training for foster parents.
A three-member Oversight Panel was created to monitor the agency’s progress in complying with the agreement.
Armstrong v. Armstrong-obtained an appellate court decision that it deprived our client the right to control the course of the divorce proceedings and violated due process for the lower court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent her interests in her divorce proceedings, even though she had never been adjudicated legally incapacitated.
In re Richard A. -obtained an appellate court decision overruling the lower court denial of our client’s objections to an accounting regarding the failure of the guardian to request a waiver of a Social Security overpayment recoupment. On appeal, the court found that "[a] guardian is a person upon whom the law imposes the duty of looking after the pecuniary interests of his wards" and remanded the case to determine whether a request for waiver should have been filed.
State v. Brosseau- obtained an appellate court decision that, although the state did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, the legislature nevertheless had implicitly waived the State's sovereign immunity from suit in guaranteeing developmental services under state law, thus allowing such claims to be pursued either administratively within the system of administrative hearings and appeals or in state court.
