Why did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts settle with the Rolland Plaintiffs’ Attorneys?
One theory is that the state’s actions result from the tragic meeting of a laudable commitment to de-institutionalization and mainstreaming with a dangerous degree of ignorance about the exceptional individuals whose lives are threatened by the actions in question. Others think the real causes are financial, ranging from a desire to free funds for other purposes to an alliance with real-estate developers and other business interests. According to court documents, the complaint that sparked the new Rolland settlement was of failure to provide a higher standard of care (called “Active Treatment”) in nursing homes. The state appears to have judged Active Treatment to be too expensive to provide in the short run and therefore offered to move most nursing home patients out of the homes in exchange for an agreement to delay implementation of the Active Treatment standard.
Related Questions
- How can the Commonwealth of Massachusetts consider spending money on a rail trail when the state budget is in under pressure and the cost of the big dig needs to be paid off?
- Are attorneys for the Commonwealth, commissioners of revenue or other constitutional officers bound by FOIA?
- Why did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts settle with the Rolland Plaintiffs’ Attorneys?
