I sent the following to Ivan, hoping  this decision can be applied in his
fight to remain in his home, and he suggested that I post it to the list
too. It actually goes hand in hand with the MiCassa legislation. Maybe
those with legal expertise could advise him further.
The Olmstead v. L.C. supreme court decision stated that unjustified
nursing home  placement by a state is in violation of the ADA . There was
also a lower court case in Hawaii that found that Olmstead applies to
those at risk for institutionalization, not only those already in nursing
homes.

FROM:  http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com/lcolmste.html.
Traumatic Brain Injury public policy site
     January 24, 2000

     The Policy Corner has lately been exploring some of the primary
     issues we are working on for the 2nd Session of the 106th. This
     week's edition provides some background relevant to our January
     3rd edition on MiCASSA, the bill that, if passed, will ensure
     that people of all ages who need long-term services and supports
     have the right to choose to live in the community rather than
     residing in a nursing home or other institution. It explores
     perhaps the most significant decision yet under the Americans
     with Disabilities Act (ADA), the civil rights act for people with
     disabilities covered in the January 17, 2000 edition of the
     Policy Corner.

     Olmstead v. L.C. -- HCFA Issues Guidance to States on Compliance
     with Olmstead and Title II of the ADA

     The Olmstead decision, rendered by the Supreme Court last June
     supplies not only a good argument in favor of MiCASSA, but
     challenges states to modify their policies and practices ensure
     that all people that need services receive them in the most
     integrated setting appropriate and that people do not have to
     wait unreasonable amounts of time to get services.

     Overview:  On June 22, 1999, the US Supreme Court ruled in
     Olmstead v. L.C. that, under the Americans With Disabilities Act
     (ADA),unjustifiable institutionalization of a person with a
     disability who, with proper support, can live in the community is
     discrimination. In its ruling, the Court said that
     institutionalization severely limits the person's ability to
     interact with family and friends, to work and to make a life for
     him or herself.

     The Olmstead case was brought by two Georgia women whose
     disabilities include mental retardation and mental illness. At
     the time the suit was filed, both plaintiffs were in state-run
     institutions, despite the fact that their treatment professionals
     believed they could be appropriately served in the community.

     The Court based its ruling on sections of the ADA, as well as on
     federal regulations that require states to administer their
     services, programs and activities "in the most integrated setting
     appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with
     disabilities" and said that:

     * Unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities is
     discrimination and violates the ADA;
     * States are required to provide community-based services for
     persons with disabilities otherwise entitled to institutional
     services when the state's treatment professionals reasonably
     determine that community placement is appropriate; the person
     does not oppose such placement; and the placement can reasonably
     be accommodated, taking into account resources available to the
     state and the needs of others receiving state-supported
     disability services;
     * A person cannot be denied community services just to keep an
     institution at its full capacity; and,
     * There is no requirement under the ADA that community-based
     services be imposed on people with disabilities who do not desire
     it.

     HCFA Issues Guidance to States

     In accordance with the ruling, the U.S. Department of Health and
     Human Services' (HHS) Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
     last week issued guidance to state Medicaid directors, reminding
     states that they have an obligation under Medicaid to review
     periodically the services of all residents in Medicaid-funded
     institutions. It also reminds states that they may use their
     Medicaid funds to provide appropriate services in a range of
     settings, from institutions to fully integrated community
     support.

     HCFA also urged states to develop comprehensive working plans to
     strengthen community service systems -- and to actively involve
     people with disabilities and their families in the design,
     development and implementation of such plans.

     HCFA also encouraged states to take steps to prevent future
     inappropriate institutionalization of persons with disabilities
     and to assure the availability of community-based services.

     Next Steps

     To help states comply with the Court ruling, HCFA states that it
     will make technical assistance available to states, and that it
     will review relevant federal Medicaid regulations, policies and
     previous guidance to assure that they, too are compatible with
     requirements of the ADA and the Olmstead decision and that they
     facilitate states' efforts to comply with the law.

     So far, HCFA has laid out a number of guidelines to help state
     plans comply with Olmstead and the ADA. If you would like details
     on these guidelines, you may request them by return e-mail or by
     contacting the BIA Policy Department at 703-236-6000, Ext. 103.

        Stay tuned. We will hear a lot more about Olmstead, MiCASSA and
     the whole issue of long-term services and supports as Congress
     gets underway in Washington, DC, and, at the same time, Olmstead
     begins to be implemented in the states.
  Janna Starr Director of Public Policy; 6022 Sunnyview Rd. NE,
     Salem, OR 97305; Ph. 503-375-6373, Fax: 503-375-6439;
     [log in to unmask]

FROM http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com/HawaiiDistrict.htm
OLMSTEAD DECISSION
To: P&As and Interested Others
From: Elizabeth Priaulx, Community Integration Specialist
Date: December 15, 1999
RE: Hawaii District Court Applies Integration Mandate To Those At Risk of
Institutionalization
      Hawaii District Court Applies Integration Mandate to Individuals
Living Outside of  Institutions Who Are At Risk Of Institutionalization

On November 26, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
issued a decision in a case brought by the Hawaii P&A that adds to the
growing case law interpreting the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead v.
L.C. In Makin v. Hawaii, Docket No. CV 98-00997 DAE, a class action
brought on behalf of individuals with Mental Retardation living at home
without appropriate services,
the District Court held that the integration mandate of Title II applies
to persons at risk of institutionalization and not only to those already
institutionalized.