Dependent Children Alleging Pa. DHS System Failures Gain Class Certification
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.
April 03, 2018 at 05:47 PM
3 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClass Action Settlements Totaled $40B+ Three Years in a Row: 'We’re in a New Era'
5 minute readPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readJudge Approves $25M Medical Monitoring Settlement Over Philips CPAP Devices
3 minute read3rd Circuit Revives Class Action Against Bayer Over Benzene-Contaminated Products
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250