Photo: studioportosabbia/iStockphoto.com

A federal judge has granted class certification to dependent children suffering from mental disabilities who claim that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services is systematically failing them.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiffs in S.R. v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services met the criteria to bring a class action lawsuit seeking system-wide changes at the department, which is responsible for providing mental-health care to dependent children.

The ruling rejected DHS's arguments that, since the plaintiffs alleged a variety of deficiencies in the treatment they received, the claims were not cohesive enough to warrant class certification. Jones, however, said DHS mischaracterized the plaintiffs' case.

“The complaint does not, as defendants suggest, seek review and determination of each individual class member's placement. Rather it seeks system-wide change,” Jones said in the 22-page opinion. “Though the named plaintiffs would hopefully benefit from the systemic change implemented through injunctive relief, the complaint does not seek individualized review of each member's current placement and needs.”

According to Jones, the named plaintiffs were all diagnosed with mental health disabilities, adjudicated dependent and eligible for medical assistance through DHS. The plaintiffs include, among others, a 10-year-old who has allegedly been waiting for placement from DHS for more than three years, and an 18-year-old who “unnecessarily” spent several months in a juvenile detention center awaiting treatment from DHS.

“The complaint paints a picture of the sad reality for various dependent youths in Pennsylvania,” Jones said. “Many dependent children with mental disabilities end up in large, congregate facilities for years while they wait for appropriate placement from DHS. Others end up waiting for months or years in inappropriate settings, such as psychiatric hospitals, juvenile detention facilities, and residential treatment facilities while they wait for placement.”

The plaintiffs allege that DHS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and portions of the Social Security Act that require states to make plans for “making medical assistance available” and provide treatment services for eligible people under the age of 21.

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs couldn't establish commonality, or typicality, and failed to show that the plaintiffs adequately represented the class.

Most of the arguments, according to Jones, were premised on the contention that the relief the plaintiffs were seeking was too specialized, which Jones repeatedly said was not the case, since the plaintiffs were seeking an injunction.

“Though we agree with defendants that, if plaintiffs are successful, they will need to propose, and the court would need to fashion, a specific injunction that gives fair notice to defendants as to what conduct will violate the order, and such constructions will be difficult, we disagree that such an injunction is impossible,” Jones said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Shanon Levin, managing attorney at Disability Rights Pennsylvania, said in an emailed statement, “We are pleased that this case is proceeding on a classwide basis across the state so that we can pursue systemic relief to ensure that dependent youth in Pennsylvania no longer languish in institutions and have access to medically necessary mental health services in the community.”

Matthew McLees of the Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel handled the case for DHS. A spokesman for the department declined to comment on pending litigation.