The Globe did an in-depth story today on the hearing, as did the Waltham Daily News Tribune. NECN and the Associated Press reported on the hearing as well.
In the end, U.S. District Court Joseph L. Tauro said he is considering asking United States Attorney Michael Sullivan to investigate the process under which Anna T. was transferred from Fernald along with as many as 10 other Fernald residents during the past six months. That's the period since Tauro issued a ruling that Fernald must remain open as an option to its current 170 residents.
As many as seven of the transferred residents, including Anna T., are legally represented by the Greater Boston Arc, which approved the moves as their corporate guardian.
Here are a few bits and pieces from the testimony, as reported by different attendees:
- As The Globe reported, Linda Curran, Anna T.'s original case worker, testified that the elderly woman had been adamant in wanting to stay at Fernald. After Curran, then an employee of GBARC, expressed her opposition to moving Anna T. and several of the other residents out of Fernald, she was stripped of her caseload and was replaced by another case manager. Curran resigned her job last week.
- Curran said that before resigning, she was called into a meeting with the GBARC CEO, who told her it was the Massachusetts Arc's philosophy that all state facilities be closed and “'we've got to move 'em out of there.'”
- Under cross-examination from Fernald plaintiffs' attorney Beryl Cohen, Carrie Johnson, Anna T.'s current GBARC case manager, could not recall what medications Anna T. takes, what medical conditions she has, or the name of any LPN at the Bedford residence.
- Christine Oliveira, a DMR deputy assistant commissioner in charge of transferring residents out of Fernald, acknowledged that the group home in Bedford to which Anna T. and as many as five other Fernald residents were moved, had been empty for several months and that DMR wanted to move residents into to it. DMR had been paying rent for an empty building.
- Oliveira contended that Anna T. was “doing fine” in the Bedford home and had no psychological problems. But under cross -examination from Cohen, she acknowledged that GBARC and the group home staff had issued an order that Anna T. was to have no visitors.
- Dorothy Rouleau, a Fernald League member, tried twice to visit Anna T. at the Bedford home, and was turned away both times.
- The GBARC CEO testified at the hearing that DMR had petitioned the probate court to have GBARC appointed as Anna T.'s guardian.
In the end, says Marilyn Meagher, Fernald League president, “There are no winners here and the losers have been the Fernald residents. But at least this story has gotten out.”
[Note: Some of the information above about yesterday's hearing was reported by Mark Zanger of COFAR, Dorothy Rouleau, and Marilyn Meagher.]
against state facilities.
<
p>It is incredibly disturbing but not at all surprising that an elderly woman with MR has a caring guardian stripped from her and replaced with a “marching in lockstep” guardian from GBARC. If the only good that comes from this saga is that the MARC and all the rest of the vendor ARCS are finally exposed for what they are – vendor advocates, not advocates for families – then that is at least one small good thing that comes of it. GBARC is taking marching orders from the MARC, clearly a less than noble organization who purports to serve as an advocacy group for people with MR! Who knew? Evidently, the “best interests” of the resident is limited to VENDOR OPS.
<
p>Friends – the system is broken. There is little or no oversight in these vendor facilities, a very high turnover rate among their low paid staff, and less access to the highly specialized services that fragile people with MR need. It is into this system – this godforsaken mess of a system, that the DMR and the Patrick administration wants to send the remaining Fernald residents. There is already a body count; how how does it have to be before someone says STOP!
<
p>
Amazing how often language – high flying language, lofty language is only a smoke screen for making money, fighting for money, wanting a bigger chunk of money.
<
p>That is what I see in this, at any event. Arc wants to keep more of the money they get, and not all clients are equal, some are more equal.
It was a very interest day of testimony. The courtroom was “bulging” with lawyers representing the State (with his entorage), DMR, ARC, ARC of MA, GBARC, etc. etc. etc. On Anna T’s side ONE lawyer.
<
p>I sat through the questions. Notwithstanding the seemingly limitless resources of the Commonwealth, DMR, etc. etc. etc. I found their arguments totally unpersuasive. Our tax dollars at work.
<
p>I’m getting to the point where nothing surprises me. But I must admit even I was surprised by the total lack of detailed knowledege regarding Anna and her needs that was presented by those defending her move. Superficial information at best. One would think that if you are making life and death decisions for someone you should be intimately familiar with the details. The exact nature of her heart condition, medications she is taking, who will administer her medication. Those defending this move could not even provide the name of the nearest hospital to this house in Bedford!
<
p>At the end of the day, after witness testimony, the Judge gave each of the lawyers an opportunity to speak. The entire entourage objected to this review. I think they protest too much.
<
p>If the circumstances surrounding Anna T’s move are as they allege (that she wanted to move, it is in her best interest and she will receive better care) then WHY OJBECT? I would think they would be happy to open their files.
<
p>
She’s product. Inventory. The warm bodies that keep up caseload statistics to justify funding.
<
p>Knowing what kind of ice cream she likes, or when she feels cranky, or why she is lonely – no, that kind of interaction limits efficient management.
<
p>I WANT ALL OF YOU TO REMEMBER THIS AS YOU PUSH TOWARDS BUREAUCRAT-RUN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. I recently had a friend die due to a dispute as to which department should allow her to use a wheelchair as she was too weak to walk in to the hospital.
<
p>Anyone who has been on the receiving end of government run social servies can tell you – First, they came for Anna…
You are conflating health care with health insurance. There are precious few advocates for having the government take over health-care; that’s not what single-payer is about.
<
p>As for the insurance aspect, we already have bureaucrat-run health insurance. I don’t think it’ll make a difference if a faceless government agency is running it, or a faceless corporate bureaucracy.
The only reason that a corporate beauracracy is faceless is because you aren’t the customer; your employer is. If you actually had the ability to shop around, I suspect that you would find that customer service to you improved.
<
p>Government beauracracies are always faceless, though, because they are not subject to any pressure other than political pressure. In other words, you’ll never be the customer.
I just read that the Judge has ordered a review by the U.S. Attorney of the transfer of Anna T. Hopefully the U.S. Attorney will find, what was apparent to me in testimony, that this move was not what she wanted.
<
p>A side note, I also read in the same article that the state has again requested an extention of time to file their brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding Judge Tauro’s August 07 ruling. I have lost count of how many extension they have requested (3 or 4).
<
p>Why can’t the states lawyers file a brief on time? The language of the ruling has not changed since May of 07 when it was originally introduced. It seems impossible to me that this group of lawyers who were so quick to object to the ruling need almost one year to put their objection down on paper.
Tuesday February 26th courtroom testimony covered the facts in AT’s inappropriate transfer. I expect the United States Attorney will examine all the facts such as is the community nurse, social worker and other staff qualified personnel?; is AT’s room furnished properly?; are all her individual service plan objectives continuing?; etc.
<
p>There is one subjective item that is not discussed, “A 91-year old woman who has lived over 50-years at Fernald was moved out of her community (Fernald is a village and not a prison); lost all the dedicated familiar staff members who had been her closest family members; lost all her friends; lost the ability to attend Sunday Mass at her parish church; lost all her community landmarks (all the intangibles that only persons who has been relocated against their will would understand); and presently there is an embargo against visits or telephone communication with former Fernald friends, etc.”
<
p>In other words AT lost all the community programs we try to provide other elderly when we create home care personal assistants, meals on wheels,and other elderly programs so our parents and other elders can stay in their homes as long as possible.
<
p>Someday AT will resign herself to life in her new house (Stockhom syndrome?) and surroundings. DMR will say “See the community transfer worked.”
<
p>IF AT cannot live in her home of 50-years, why do we endever to grant this option to others? One reason is that the other elders are not mentally retarded and vote.
<
p>Mav
I have a question.
<
p>I know that today anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. But I am confused.
<
p>The group fighting for the rights of the people at Fernald to stay at Fernald are the guardians–the fight is between the guardians and the State of Massachusetts and the DMR. Why is the Massachusetts ARC involved in the appeal? They are supposedly a separate, non-profit, non-government entity. What standing do they have that allows to them to file an appeal along with the state? What gives them the right to insert their organization into the middle of this fight? Can anyone explain this to me.
<
p>I would appreciate the education.