Jensen et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al

Plaintiff: James Jensen, Lorie Jensen, James Brinker, Darren Allen and Elizabeth Jacobs
Defendant: Minnesota Department of Human Services, Director, Clinical Director, Douglas Bratvold, Scott TenNapel and Minnesota, State of
Case Number: 0:2009cv01775
Filed: July 10, 2009
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Ramsey
Presiding Judge: Frank
Referring Judge: Noel
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
June 28, 2017 638 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. Defendants' objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction is OVERRULED. 2. Absent further order of the Court, all reporting obligations previously imposed shall remain in place. 3. The Court will convene a bi-annual status con ference in this matter in December 2017. Prior to this status conference, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss the essential steps that remain in Defendants' implementation of the Agreement before the Court can equitably terminate its jurisdiction over this matter. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/28/2017. (BJS)
September 29, 2015 510 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. The Court APPROVES the State's Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. [486-1]). 2. The Court reserves ruling on the approval of the Olmstead Plan's implementation plan because corresponding workplans are not yet submitted to the Court. (See Do c. No. 486-1 at 16.) Once these workplans are submitted, the Court will review and approve the implementation plan based on the recommendations and input of Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. 3. The Court reserves the right to exercise its continuing jurisdiction with respect to the revised Olmstead Plan to ensure that compliance with the Settlement Agreement is verified going forward. This paragraph contemplates that the Court will continue to carry out its oversight responsibility to oversee the State's efforts in following through on the significant commitments it has made. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/29/2015. (BJS)
June 24, 2015 464 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER 1. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 446 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. The Department of Human Services, in consultation with the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, shall create a provisional discharge plan for W.O . for his transfer from the Minnesota Security Hospital. This plan shall be submitted to the Court, with a copy to Plaintiffs' counsel, by July 31, 2015. 3. The Department of Human Services shall submit Dr. Gary LaVigna's report on W.O. to the Court as soon as the report becomes available. 4. The parties shall attend a status conference on August 4, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., to provide the Court with an update regarding the status of W.O., including, but not limited to, the following issues: (1) whether W.O. has been moved from the Minnesota Security Hospital; and (2) if W.O. has not been moved from the Minnesota Security Hospital, what placement options have been identified and pursued and what transition plans have been made with resp ect to W.O. In addition to the parties, the Court invites the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the county officials involved in the state proceeding, including the Dakota County attorney and defense counsel, as well as W.O. s social workers and any involved mental health professionals, to the August 4, 2015 status conference. The conference will take place in the 7th Floor Conference Room of the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.5. As the Court indicated at the hearing, it is the expectation of the Court that there will be collaboration between the parties, the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, and the involv ed county officials with respect to W.O.'s situation. Separately, it is the expectation of the Court that the Department of Human Services will provide an analysis of the names of individuals who are high or frequent users of crisis services, ho spitalizations, and inpatient psychiatric units to Plaintiffs and to the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities by July 22, 2015. Finally, as the Court has stated in previous Orders, it is the expectation of the Court that the Dep artment of Human Services will seek the input of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities and the Executive Director of the Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities in this process. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 435 ("May 6, 2015 Order") at 9; Doc. No. 340 ("September 3, 2014 Order") at 4.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/24/2015. (BJS)
May 6, 2015 435 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the States Proposed Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. [401-1]). 2. The parties shall submit a revised Olmstead Plan to the Court by July 10, 2015. The revised Olmstead Plan shall encompass the requirements of the Settlemen t Agreement and prior orders of this Court and shall respond to previously identified gaps and deficiencies in the States proposed Olmstead Plan. 3. In lieu of contempt and other sanctions at this time, the Court requires Defendants to fulfill their obligations in a timely manner for the Courts review and approval; attend any status conferences that may be scheduled by the undersigned or Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson regarding the Olmstead Plan; and actively seek input from the consultants t o the parties, Dr. Colleen Wieck and Roberta Opheim, in this process. 4. The Court expressly reserves the right to issue an order to show cause or impose sanctions, depending upon the status of compliance with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Courts orders, as noted above. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/6/2015. (BJS)
March 19, 2015 400 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. Defendants' request for clarification of the Court's January 9, 2015 Order and an extension of time (Doc. No. 398 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2015. (BJS)
January 13, 2015 379 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. Defendants' Motion to Amend the Comprehensive Plan of Action (Doc. No. 317 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. Defendants shall continue to report to the Court Monitor on a regular basis regarding D.P.'s living situation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/13/2015. (BJS)
September 18, 2014 344 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the State's Proposed Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. [326-1]) at this time. 2. The parties shall submit a revised Olmstead Plan to the Court Monitor by November 10, 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/18/2014. (BJS)
September 3, 2014 340 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. The Court APPROVES the Court Monitor's Report to the Court: Community Compliance Review (Doc. No. 327 ). (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/3/2014. (BJS)
January 22, 2014 266 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER (see Order for details). (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 01/22/2014. (RLB)
December 17, 2013 259 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. 1. The Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 230 ) is GRANTED. However, for the reasons stated off the bench at the time of the hearing and in this Memorandum and Order, the Court reser ves ruling on what sanctions are appropriate, pending receipt of the status of compliance by Defendants and the status of the implementation plan required by this Court, noted in the Court's Memorandum and Order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/17/2013. (BJS)
August 28, 2013 224 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. (Please note there are no substantive changes to this amended order; only minor typographical errors have been corrected.) The Court, having been advised by the Court Monitor that the parties have agreed that the Court s retention of jurisdiction over the above-entitled matter may be extended for an additional year to December 4, 2014, beyond the current December 4, 2013 date, pursuant to Section XVIII.B. of the Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby extends its ju risdiction over this matter to December 4, 2014. However, the Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of compliance by the Defendants with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement, absent stipulation of the parties. (See Order for additional details.) (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 08/28/2013. (RLB)
August 27, 2013 223 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. The Court, having been advised by the Court Monitor that the parties have agreed that the Courts retention of jurisdiction over the above-entitled matter may be extended for an additional year to December 4, 2014, beyond the cur rent December 4, 2013 date, pursuant to Section XVIII.B. of the Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby extends its jurisdiction over this matter to December 4, 2014. However, the Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an add itional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of compliance by the Defendants with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement, absent stipulation of the parties. (See Order for additional details.) (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/27/2013. (BJS)
April 25, 2013 212 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. 1. Role of David Ferleger. The external reviewer function, as set forth in the Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement at paragraph VII.B (External Reviewer) will be subsumed within the Monitor's role as origin ally set forth in the Court's July 17, 2012 Order, at which time the Court appointed David Ferleger as the Court's independent consultant and monitor. 2. Monitor's Investigation and Reports. The Monitor will independently investigate, verify, and report on compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the policies set forth therein on a quarterly basis. Those quarterly reports shall inform the Court and the parties whether the Monitor believes, based upon his investigation, without relying on the conclusion of the DHS, that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the policies set forth therein. The Court expects the reports to set forth the factual basis for any recommendations and conclusion s. Further, the reports shall set forth whether the DHS is operating consistent with the best practices pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, the Court respectfully declines to accept the parties' stipulation to limit the role of the Monitor. (See Order for additional details.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/25/2013. (BJS)
March 19, 2013 205 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. 1. Status Conference: By this Order, the Court will respectfully direct Brenda Schaffer, the Court's Calendar Clerk, to set up a chambers conference for all counsel and to verify with respective counsel who should and will be in attendance at the conference. 2. In the context of the issue of noncompliance with the original Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 104), the Court respectfully declines, absent further order of the Court, to modify the role of David Ferleger or to otherwise approve the stipulation of the parties at this time. However, once the Court has had an opportunity to meet with counsel for each party and has established the role of Mr. Ferleger (with or without agreement of the parties), the Court then expects Deputy Commissioner Ann Barry and David Ferleger to meet and to utilize their best efforts to agree on a budget for David Ferleger. Moreover, the Court intends to inform the parties at the status conference that given the status of the case , including the issues of noncompliance, the focus of David Ferleger will be to evaluate compliance and noncompliance issues vis--vis a mediation approach. Consequently, with or without agreement of the parties, the Court will establish the role and function of David Ferleger, as well as establish the budget for his services, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement.3. The Court expressly reserves the right to request the assistance of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, with respect to compliance issues with the Settlement Agreement and the Orders of this Court. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2013. (BJS)
July 17, 2012 159 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. David Ferleger is hereby appointed as an independent advisor and monitor pursuant to this order. The parties shall cooperate fully with David Ferleger, and provide him with access to the facilities, services, programs, data, and documents relevant to the Settlement Agreement. He may convene meetings, meet relevant individuals and groups, attend case-related court proceedings and review pleadings, motions, and documents submitted to the court. The parties shall serve Mr. Ferleger with all such papers. He shall have ex parte access to the parties, their counsel and to the Court. However, in the event there is any information provided to the Court by David Ferleger which is utilized or otherwise relied upon by the Court for any reas on relating to compliance with the Settlement Agreement, the Court will provide such information to counsel for the parties. 2. Defendants shall file within sixty (60) days a status report on implementation of the Settlement Agreement (apart from the fund distribution). The format and structure for the report shall be developed in cooperation with, and determined by, David Ferleger. 3. The format and structure for the reports of the External Reviewer shall also be developed in cooperation with, and determined by, David Ferleger. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/17/2012. (BJS)
May 22, 2012 150 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. 1. The Minnesota Department of Human Services shall make available to the appropriate office(s) of the Social Security Administration, the list of Class Members authorized to receive payments in this matter, the amount of the payment, along w ith that Class Member's social security number. 2. The Social Security Administration shall use this information solely for the purposes it was requested: to effectuate the Court's Orders in this matter to assure that the funds awarded to e ach individual Class Member is not a resource for eligibility purposes and, consequently, an individual settlement amount will not affect, in any way, a Class Members eligibility for disability benefits or other related benefits, or otherwise jeopardize the Class Member's benefits or programming. 3. That all other Orders in this matter shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/21/2012. (BJS)
April 23, 2012 144 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER 1. Solely to the extent necessary to maintain Class Members' eligibility for governmental benefits, including but not limited to Social Security benefits, the apportioned settlement funds to each Class Member shall be considered a blocked account or conservatorship account consistent with applicable Social Security regulations, applicable Social Security Administration guidance, including Program Operating Manual System (POMS) SI 01140.215, the decision of Navarro by Navarro v. Sulliv an, 751 F. Supp. 349 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), and other applicable law, including this Courts broad equitable powers to render complete justice, see Crawford, et al. v. Janklow, et al., 733 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir. 1984); see also White ex rel. Smith v. Apfel , 167 F.3d 369, 375 (7th Cir. 1999) (court's denial of petition to release conservatorship funds rebutted presumption that funds were available for care or maintenance); POMS SI CHI01140.215 (In Minnesota, it cannot be presumed that funds are co nsidered accessible and a countable resource; and any presumption of availability of funds can be nullified if the court order establishing the conservatorship specifically blocks the account from use for food, clothing or shelter). This Court's prior Orders precluding the expenditure of Settlement Funds for costs of care, unpaid bills or rent, and noting that the settlement funds are not a resource, are consistent with the use of a conservatorship account or blocked account, and mean that the Settlement Funds shall not be available or used for support or maintenance, including expenditures for food, clothing or shelter. See Navarro, 750 F. Supp. at 350 (construing social security regulation defining resources as assets that can be liq uidated for support and maintenance and determining settlement award does not constitute a resource, noting: However the items for which the Settlement Order permits use of the funds may be characterized, they are not fairly denominated support and m aintenance.); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1121(h) and § 416.1130(b) (defining support and maintenance as food, or shelter furnished to you); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1157(b) (Support and maintenance assistance means cash provided for the purpose of meeting food or shelter needs....); cf. Brown ex. rel. Brown v. Day, 555 F.3d 882, 885-86 (10th Cir. 2009) (under Social Security regulations and guidance, if an individual has no authority to compel use of trust assets for her own support and maintenance, assets are not considered an available resource); Seidenberg v. Weil, No. Civ. A. 95-WY-2191-WD, 1996 WL 33665490, at *7 (D. Colo. Nov. 1, 1996) (counting trust as available resource where beneficiary cannot compel trustee to use assets for beneficia ry's support and maintenance violates federal Medicaid statute). With this further clarification on the limitation of the use of the settlement funds, expressly precluding expenditure of the Settlement Funds for support or maintenance, Class Me mbers may use their apportioned settlement amounts as a supplement to enhance the quality of their lives consistent with this Courts Orders in this matter without jeopardizing eligibility for ongoing benefits. This is based on the Courts review of al l submissions and the status of the above matter to date, as well as discussions and communication with counsel, including counsel for the United States and the Social Security Administration. Nothing stated in this Order contradicts, or is any way inconsistent with, the Social Security Act and its regulations. (See Order for additional details.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/23/2012. (BJS)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jensen et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Jensen
Represented By: Shamus P O'Meara
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lorie Jensen
Represented By: Shamus P O'Meara
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Brinker
Represented By: Shamus P O'Meara
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Darren Allen
Represented By: Shamus P O'Meara
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Jacobs
Represented By: Shamus P O'Meara
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Minnesota Department of Human Services
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Director
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Clinical Director
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Douglas Bratvold
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Scott TenNapel
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Minnesota, State of
Represented By: Paul Kenneth Kohnstamm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?