Blog

DRM represented “Dara,” a young woman with mental illness who lives in a supportive housing program. The program terminated Dara’s lease after she intervened in a fight to protect a friend who was being assaulted in her building. DRM investigated and found that the building, which serves young adults who are formerly homeless or aging out of foster care, was very chaotic because the program had stopped providing building security, and Dara’s case manager was refusing to intervene when she asked for help or indicated she did not feel safe. DRM was able to negotiate a solution whereby the supportive housing program allowed Dara to move to an independent apartment of her choosing with continued rental assistance. DRM also advocated for the program to train its staff about the principles of trauma informed care.

Without providing adequate notice to his family, the state reduced and then ended Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) for “Abdul,” a 13-year-old boy with cerebral palsy, autism, stereotypic movement disorder, and intellectual disability. DRM advocated for Abdul to be reinstated into his previous level of TBS pending his appeal. While the state ultimately authorized these hours pending the hearing, but before Abdul could receive them, he was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility for several weeks, which according to his neurologist, was due in part to the lack of in-home TBS services. DRM provided extensive support, including answers to legal questions and strategic advice, to a pro bono attorney who represented Abdul in appealing the reductions and termination of TBS hours. The administrative law judge found that the reductions below 40 hours/week of TBS, and the subsequent termination of his hours altogether, were improper. We will follow up to ensure that Abdul connects with an agency able to provide the ongoing 40 hours/week TBS services.

DRM represented “Yesenia,” who despite her severe physical disability, had maintained her job as an inclusion school teacher for the past 15 years with the assistance of 90 weekly hours of attendant care under Medicaid, first under a waiver program and then under Medicaid Community First Choice (CFC). Yesenia had also been able to purchase her own home. When DHMH terminated the self-directed option under CFC and transferred her services to an agency, the state reduced her hours to 77 per week but failed to send her written notice with appeal rights in accordance with the law. Yesenia’s ability to continue working, paying her mortgage and living in the community rather than a nursing facility was at risk, as she could not afford to pay for the additional care she needed and thus intended to quit her job unless she received the full 90 hours of care. She came to DRM when appealing a later request to restore her from 77 to 90 weekly hours. We represented her to get the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) to restore her to 90 hours pending the appeal hearing and advocate on the merits for the restoration of her approval for 90 hours. While DHMH did restore her to 90 hours until the hearing, they refused to reverse their decision on the merits. We referred the case to a pro bono attorney with limited experience and provided many hours of technical assistance to her on handling the case over several months. After negotiations, the week before the scheduled hearing, DHMH rescinded its decision to cut Yesenia’s hours and restored her to 90 hours/week.