Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP Wins Important Case of First Impression Challenging the Adequacy of Healthcare for the Disabled

Prominent Mineola, New York-based law firm Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan (BM&M), LLP recently won an important case of first impression involving a married developmentally disabled couple whose parents filed a Federal lawsuit on their behalf seeking to compel their group homes to permit them to cohabitate after marriage. United States District Court Judge Leonard D. Wexler granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiffs have since filed an appeal.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friendRepost This

Mineola, New York (PRWEB) April 23, 2014

Prominent Mineola-based law firm Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan (BM&M), LLP recently won an important case of first impression involving a married developmentally disabled couple whose parents filed a Federal lawsuit on their behalf seeking to compel their group homes to permit them to cohabitate after marriage. United States District Court Judge Leonard D. Wexler granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have since filed an appeal. Forziano v. Ind. Group Home Living Program, Inc., CV 13-0370 (March 26, 2014). Maryhaven Center of Hope in Port Jefferson Station, NY, Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc. (IGHL) in Manorville, NY, and the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) were the Defendants in the case. The Plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on the couple’s disabilities. With their extensive experience and background in healthcare advocacy, the attorneys representing Maryhaven, BM&M Partner Robert F. Elliott and Associate Anna I. Hock, developed a successful argument that demonstrated how their client responsibly met the needs of the developmentally disabled all the while complying with Federal anti-discrimination statutes.

According to legal documents, Maryhaven is a member of Catholic Health Services of Long Island and operated the Group Home in which 35-year-old Hava Forziano had lived full-time prior to her marriage to Paul Forziano, 29, who had also been provided day services at the Home. The couple expressed their desire to cohabitate in the Group Home after marriage. Maryhaven declined to provide this service as it was not clinically appropriate.

As set forth in the papers submitted to the court, the couple’s parents argued that the law mandated the Group Home to accommodate the special needs of Mr. and Mrs. Forziano to cohabitate as a married couple. They further argued that refusal of the request was discriminatory due to the couple’s disabilities.

According to legal papers filed in this matter, Defendants asserted that the request to cohabitate was driven solely by marital status and not disability. Underscoring Maryhaven’s long-standing dedication to their residents’ well being, Mr. Elliott and Ms. Hock argued that while the law requires adequate services for residents, it does not require accommodations for special cases such as this one.

In arguing the case, Mr. Elliott and Ms. Hock drew upon their expertise as former healthcare providers and prominent healthcare legal practitioners to bring special awareness and insight to the discussion. Understanding the medical treatment that is an integral part of living in a group home, they stressed the importance of the complex treatment plans, called Individualized Service Plans (ISPs), that are provided for each resident. A team of healthcare professionals, along with family members and the residents themselves, create these plans, which include needed levels of supervision. According to papers filed in court, this type of supervision would be unable to be implemented successfully for the Forzianos or any couple living together whose needs qualify them for placement in a group home due to limited capacity to live independently. The essential services provided by Maryhaven, as well as IGHL, are to be distinguished from accommodations, including co-habiting as a married couple, which are not services mandated to be provided to the disabled and not appropriate in this setting, maintained the Defendants.

“We are acutely sensitive to the issues and pressures our healthcare clients face every day,” said Mr. Elliott. “Despite their best efforts to provide caring and appropriate care to residents, patients and their families, they are second guessed at every turn. It is gratifying to us that we were able to vindicate our client’s rights in this lawsuit.”

In addition, in her brief, Ms. Hock clarified the critical point that the law protects the disabled from discrimination in situations in which able-bodied people are given preferential treatment, and thus the rights of disabled individuals are violated. The court found, however, that the law does not establish an obligation to provide particular accommodations for one disabled person that are not provided for others within the same setting.

The Defendants, according to the decision of Judge Wexler, were successful in refuting the Plaintiffs’ claims that they discriminated against the Forzianos due to their disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act. The Court also held that the services provided by the group homes are not accommodations that can be challenged or manipulated by anti-discrimination laws.

About Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP: Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP is a multidisciplinary law firm with a personalized, results-driven approach to justice. The attorneys at BM&M are highly skilled litigators and advocates, as evidenced by a proven track record that is unparalleled in the region. They strive to empower their diverse client base through accurate, cost effective litigation management and have proven themselves in state and federal court across a broad range of disciplines including: complex litigation, malpractice, labor and employment, healthcare law, civil rights, products liability, insurance coverage disputes, security and assaults, hotel and hospitality industry cases, municipal liability, and commercial. The firm has five offices located throughout the New York Metropolitan area and employs more than 50 attorneys who are supported by a dedicated staff to meet the growing and diverse needs of their clients.

Attorney advertising: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


Contact