Exchange
A quarterly newsletter of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
(MPAS)
SUMMER 2012
Inside This Issue:
Voting in a Primary Election
NDRN, Others Issue Updated Reports on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools
We Can’t Afford to Lose Michigan’s No-Fault Auto Law
Ask the Advocate
Update on Education Advocacy
Public Policy Platform Clarifications
Returning Residents to the Community is Nursing Facility’s Obligation
MPAS Update on Legal Action Recently Taken
What do CAIR Team Members do and how can they be of Assistance?
Disability experts Discuss Public Policy Issues with U.S. Legislator
Disability Advocates Speak up at Legislative Luncheon
MPAS Disability Essay Contest Winners
MPAS’ Brian Appointed to Michigan Rehabilitation Council
Disability Agency Names new Director of Government and Media Relations
From the Executive Director
Assistive Technology Information You Can Use
“I’m going to School!”
Rights Restored to Student with Behavioral Disability
Solomon is 11 years old and in the fourth grade.
“The school administrators said that my child was just being stubborn,” says the mom of
a Pontiac school child. “They insisted that he did not have an impairment that was related
to his behavioral problem.”
Her son, Solomon, had been receiving speech and language special education services to
help him overcome a mouth injury he had suffered as a young child. Since his speech had
improved significantly, it was determined that he was no longer eligible for special
education services related to speech and language. However, the day after he tested out
(passed) the speech and language test, he was expelled from school for behavior issues.
Not knowing where to turn, Solomon’s mom called MPAS. Suspecting that Solomon’s
rights had been violated, the MPAS advocate began an investigation. First, she checked
the school district’s records to if Solomon had been receiving all of the services he had
the right to receive under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
IDEA is a federal law giving students with disabilities a legal right to a free, appropriate
public education and protections against school discipline. IDEA also requires schools to
provide services that address behavior issues of students with disabilities.
“Solomon has had special issues since birth,” says his mom. “He never blinked until he
was seven months old and later was diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder. Ever
since he was in preschool, it has been written into his individualized education program
(IEP) that he should receive social work services, yet he has not.”
Once it was determined that the school district had indeed violated Solomon’s rights,
MPAS filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), the state
department that oversees Michigan schools.
It didn’t take too long after the MDE began their investigation, that administrators at the
school district contacted both the MDE and MPAS and agreed to work out a resolution.
That resolution included allowing Solomon to return to school with the proper special
education supports and services.
Solomon now has a worker from Oakland Family Services visit him once a week to work
with him on anger management techniques and emotional and self esteem issues.
It is a priority of MPAS to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a quality
education. That can only be accomplished if students at risk of push out due to a
disability-related behavior remain in school.
According to the IDEA, a student is considered to have a disability even if the school has
not tested or identified the child as such. If the school knew or should have known of the
child's disability, the student may still be protected by special education law.
The law also tries to ensure that a child not be disciplined for conduct related to a
disability. Before IDEA, students with disability-related behavior were frequently
removed from school without notice or explanation. There are strict procedures that must
be followed before a school district now can remove a student with a disability from
school.
If, like Solomon, your child is having behavioral problems due to a disability, the school
may be required by law to provide certain supports and services.
If you think your child’s behavior is disability related or you have questions about
disability law as it pertains to special education services, call MPAS at 800.288.5923.
Voting in a Primary Election
Michigan Primary Election – August 7, 2012
Michigan General Election – November 6, 2012
Michigan is holding its next election in August – called a primary election. The purpose
of a primary election is to give voters an opportunity to decide which candidates – from
within their party – will run for public office in November.
In Michigan, you do not have to be registered with a particular party to vote in a primary
election. Michigan holds an open primary, which allows any registered voter to
participate. Some states operate closed primaries. This is where registered voters must
first declare themselves a member of a party in advance and are only given that party’s
ballot.
Voting in a Michigan primary requires that you choose candidates from within only one
party. To make it easy, candidates will be grouped by party affiliation on your ballot. You
cannot select candidates on the ballot from more than one party; otherwise, your votes
will be invalidated and won’t count. The ballot will have another section with nonpartisan
candidates. Because these candidates are not affiliated with any party, you can choose
whomever you wish.
It is very important that you vote in all primary elections. If your candidates lose in the
primary, then they have the lost entirely and will not be placed on the November ballot.
Try to prevent this from happening by voting in August – candidates need your support.
NDRN, Others Issue Updated Reports on
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools
In a new report released March 6, 2012, the National Disability Rights Network
(NDRN) called on the U.S. Department of Education to do more to reduce and prevent
the use of restraint and seclusion on school children.
“[The U.S. Department of Education] has not provided any meaningful leadership to
reduce the use of restraint and seclusion − despite the fact that students are continuing to
be confined, tied up, pinned down, battered and nearly killed on a regular basis,” said
NDRN Executive Director Curt Decker.
NDRN argues that the U.S. Department of Education is in the unique position to:
 issue strong national guidance to state education agencies and local school
districts about when the use of restraint and seclusion might violate antidiscrimination and education laws, similar to the guidance that the Office of Civil
Rights has already issued on bullying and harassment;
 pull together a national summit of researchers, educators, mental health
professionals and others to discuss whether restraint and seclusion has any
therapeutic value and to develop evidence-based best practices to prevent and
reduce the use of restraint and seclusion;
 prevent future injuries and deaths by investigating restraint and seclusion and
requiring school districts to take appropriate corrective action; and,
 define the scope of the problem and how to address it by immediately using data
it has collected for the 2009-2010 school year about the use of restraint and
seclusion.
“The examples in our report from Connecticut about scream rooms, and Kentucky where
a boy was stuffed in a duffel bag, show the need for ED to take positive and strong
actions,” continued Decker. “NDRN calls upon ED to take a stand and protect our school
children by following the concrete suggestions proposed in this report.”
A copy of the report can be found at www.ndrn.org.
Several other national reports were issued on restraint and seclusion in schools, including
reports from TASH, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Consortium of
Citizens with Disabilities, the Coalition of Parent Advocates and Attorneys, and the
American Association of School Administrators. The U.S. Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) also released guidelines for school practices. For more information on
these reports, please contact the MPAS at 800.288.5923.
We Can’t Afford to Lose Michigan’s No-Fault
Auto Law
CUTLINE: Laurie Thomas, Administrator for Barrs Residential Care, with Ann Manning
at the Annual Brain Injury Association Conference in 2011.
Ann Manning was 20 years old when a drunk driver instantaneously changed her life.
One week before her wedding, she was involved a car accident that paralyzed her from
the chest down. That split second altered her future dramatically.
Doctors drilled four places in her head to allow for a halo brace, while 100 pounds of
pressure was applied to stabilize her spine in preparation for spinal fusion surgery three
days later. As the spine swelling reduced, her function slowly started to return. After
three months of rehab, the halo brace was removed and Ann was confident she would be
a walking woman. Sadly, that was not the case.
Since the accident, Ann still needs physical therapy, durable medical equipment, home
and vehicle modifications, and four hours of daily intermittent attendant care to maintain
full-time employment. With exceptional treatment from her physiatrist, physical
therapist, occupational therapist, and urologist, Ann walked down, with assistance, the
aisle 14 months after her automobile accident. She then returned to school and graduated
from Oakland University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing.
"I have a beautiful canal front home where I live with my husband, stepson, service dog
and family pet. I lead a wonderful, fulfilling life – despite my injury – in large part due to
the benefits of Michigan's No-Fault Auto law," says Ann.
Nine years after her injury, she resumed her passion for sports and was even inducted into
the Athletes with Disabilities Hall of Fame. Ann Manning currently works as a consultant
for the William Ellis Company, a barrier-free home modifications construction company.
She has also served in an executive capacity for traumatic brain and spinal cord injury
rehabilitation providers over the past 16 years. She is a member of the Coalition to
Protect Auto No-Fault (CPAN) and a longtime board member of Michigan Protection and
Advocacy Service, Inc.
To date, Ann's injuries have reached more than $1 million in costs. In another 25 years,
her injuries could easily total $5 million or more!
Fortunately, the treatment of Ann's injuries is covered through Michigan's no-fault
insurance system. Because Michigan law requires insured drivers to carry lifetime auto
injury benefits, Ann has been able to lead a full, functional and independent life at home
and in the community following her accident.
Ann's AAA auto insurance pays for healthcare needs beyond the limits of her health
insurance policy, as well as home modifications and attendant care. Without this
coverage, Ann – and thousands of accident survivors like her – would not be able to live
the active and productive life she is currently enjoying.
ASK THE ADVOCATE
What programs are available for children with disabilities who are at risk of out-ofhome placements, and whose parents are struggling to keep their families intact?
Among programs and services offered to families in the community, two programs – the
Children’s Waiver Program (CWP) and Children with Serious Emotional
Disturbances Waiver (SEDW) help keep at-risk children with developmental or
psychiatric disabilities at home with their families or return them to their families from
out-of-home placements. Both programs have a limited number of spaces available for
the children they can serve.
Children’s Waiver Program
The Children’s Waiver Program allows states to waive parental income and assets,
making children with a developmental disability eligible for Medicaid as a family of one.
Children who are screened for this program typically have medical needs and/or behavior
problems needing additional specialized treatment and services which may not be
appropriately met by other community sources.
In fiscal year 2012, federal and state matching funds for CWP will serve 469 children
with disabilities. To be eligible for this program, children must meet the following
requirements:
 Age 18 or under,
 Reside with parent(s) or guardian,
 Has a developmental disability as defined in the Mental Health Code,
 Meets the criteria to be placed in an intermediate care facility and needs active
and specialized treatment,
 At risk of out-of-home placement.
Services under this program can include:
 Community Living Supports (CLS),
 Specialized medical equipment and supplies,
 Accessibility adaptations to the home,
 Home care training for family and non-family members,
 Respite services,
 Enhanced transportation,
 Specialty services, (e.g. art, music, recreational therapy).
For additional information regarding eligibility and CWP services, families should
contact their local community mental health (CMH) or visit the Michigan Department
of Community Health (MDCH) Web site at www.michigan.gov/mdch.
Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Waiver
In October 2005, the Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Waiver (SEDW)
became available in a limited number of counties. Children who are enrolled in the
SEDW prior to their 18th birthday are eligible for services up to age 20. Local community
mental health (CMH) agencies partner with other community providers to provide
wraparound services through a Plan of Service (POS) that includes enhanced services
and supports for children and their families.
To be eligible for this program, children must meet the following requirements:
 At risk of hospitalization in Hawthorne Center, a state psychiatric hospital for
children;
 Have serious functional limitations that impair their ability to function in the
community;
 Age 18 or under at the time of SEDW approval;
 Eligible for Medicaid as a family of one which waives parental income and
assets;
 Receives at least one waiver service per month as identified in the wraparound
plan.
Some of the services offered in this program include individual and family
psychotherapy, crisis intervention services, home-based psychiatric supportive treatment,
community living supports, respite care, and community transition services (for children
returning home).
For more information regarding the SEDW program and the participating CMHs and
counties, visit MDCH’s Web site at www.michigan.gov/mdch or contact your local
CMH. You can also contact MPAS at 800.288.5923 and speak to an advocate.
Update on Education Advocacy
Mark, Information & Referral & Education Director
MPAS began surveying parents of children with disabilities in November 2010 through
our information and referral service. We asked parents if their children were having
problems related to behavior, including problems that could suggest future behavior
challenges such as academic struggles, retention, or multiple absences. The survey is not
intended to produce scientifically valid data but is designed as an informal measure of the
scope of current or possible future behavior issues facing students with disabilities in
Michigan.
MPAS callers have completed more than 1,400 surveys since April 2011 and over 330 in
the first three months of 2012. Individual survey responses have been used to screen and
identify cases for investigation for possible complaints. Through March 2012, MPAS had
filed 39 state complaints and obtained favorable findings or agreed-upon resolutions in 19
of them, with several more pending.
More than 120 (36 percent) of the parents responding so far this year reported they had
been called to pick their children up from school because of behavior problems. In the
last issue of Exchange, MPAS cited these survey results and called into question the
statement of the State Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) on the problem
of de facto suspension. When contacted about the article by SEAC, MPAS agreed to print
SEAC’s policy statement in its entirety.
Here is their statement:
“During the 2009-2010 year, an ad-hoc committee of the Michigan Special Education
Advisory Committee explored the issue of students with disabilities being asked to go
home or be signed out of school in lieu of the child being suspended. The intent of the
group was to explore the issue – referred to as de facto suspension – and determine if this
practice was such that it represented an unmet need with regard to the education of
students with disabilities. The conclusion of that work was that the issue was not an
unmet need in the education of students with disabilities, but rather the failure to use
other available tools, such as positive behavior supports, to address the issue.
For an issue to be determined an unmet need, one criteria is that the issue is, in fact,
statewide in scope, that is, there is evidence that schools are routinely sending students
with disabilities home for any number of reasons and are not recording that time away
from school as a suspension. The SEAC engaged in considerable discussion on the issue
of students with disabilities being asked to go home or ‘be signed out in lieu of
suspension and why parents and schools might use this practice – right, wrong or
indifferent – instead of suspension. While it appeared that this practice occurs in many
places in our state, there is no way to substantiate the practice. Further, we were struck by
the dilemma of collecting data on a practice: there is no way for the panel to collect data
on the practice nor does the panel want to advocate for its use.
“The SEAC has the responsibility to identify unmet needs that may be occurring
throughout the state that are impacting the education of students with disabilities. We
believe that this practice is not an unmet need, but rather a failure to understand the
implications of the practice with regard to the education of students with disabilities and
their due process rights that assure access to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
“Parents must assert their student’s rights for a free, appropriate public education,
asserting this right up the chain of command in their districts and filing complaints with
the State, if necessary, in their particular situation. Districts must assure that their
personnel are aware of the consequences of this practice and do not inadvertently restrict
the rights of a student with a disability to a free, appropriate public education. When a
violation of a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education is brought forward to
the Michigan Department of Education, it can be investigated and districts can be made
ordered to correct the practice.
“These discussions were not without fruit. The SEAC liaison from the Michigan
Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs and Early
Intervention Services participated in our discussions. As a result of these discussions,
the liaison shared these concerns with the Department, resulting in changes in questions
asked of the districts during focused monitoring audits of suspensions and expulsions.
“This suggests to the SEAC that the Michigan Department of Education has already
taken steps to help with this situation no matter the reasons for its happening. The process
outlined by the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services indicates that
wherever de facto suspensions are discovered, districts will be cited for being in
noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the Michigan
Administrative Rules for Special Education regarding removals of students with
disabilities from the school setting.
“While this issue did not rise to the level of an unmet need, the SEAC recommended that
all organizational members go back to their organizations and discuss the need to inform
members, and the families with whom they may work, of their rights when it comes to
suspensions. It is important for parents to know their child’s rights, the chain of command
in their district if there are problems, and that they have the right to file a complaint with
the State if there is a problem occurring. Without this knowledge, parents and district
personnel may not understand the unintended consequences of the practice of sending
children home in lieu of suspension. Further, in the absence of complaints with regard to
this practice, the district and/or State does not have data on the practice and cannot make
changes or offer technical assistance when such issues arise.
Public Policy Platform Clarifications
In the last issue of Exchange, the MPAS Public Policy Platform for fiscal year 2011-2012
made reference to agency work that requires further clarification. In particular, there was
reference to work involving “integration of students into general and special education
systems,” implying that MPAS supported continued separation of students in special
education programs and systems. MPAS’ legal mandate and priorities, in fact, support
inclusion of all students, including students with disabilities, as students in general
education settings. MPAS staff and our Board’s Public Policy Committee are working on
revisions to the education aspects of the public policy platform and will publish that
information in a later edition. We apologize for the confusion.
Helping Residents Return to the Community
is Nursing Facility’s Obligation
Mark, Legal Director
As readers of Exchange are aware, MPAS is increasingly focused on strategies to
eliminate abuse and neglect in nursing facilities. Some of those strategies were discussed
in the last issue. Among other things, we described services that are available in the
community to support individuals who want to leave a nursing facility.
Now the State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA)
has stepped in to remind nursing facilities of their obligations to assist residents who to
return to the community. In a letter dated February 27, 2012, LARA noted that the
United States Supreme Court, in the Olmstead v. L.C. decision, upheld the right of
individuals to receive services in the most integrated setting. This means simply that all
individuals should have the choice of staying in a nursing facility or returning to the
community.
Obviously, the nursing facility can either help or hinder that process. LARA – the agency
that inspects and monitors nursing facilities – has made it clear that facilities must assist
residents who would rather live within the community.
Nursing homes administrators have three specific obligations in this process.
First, they must ask the resident if s/he wishes to discuss the possibility of returning to
the community. The resident’s response must be noted in their clinical record.
Second, the facility must make a referral to the appropriate agency that administers the
MiChoice program. MiChoice is the program of services and supports for individuals
who would otherwise be forced to live in a nursing facility.
Third, the facility must not interfere with the agencies who administer the MiChoice
program, usually the local Area Agency on Aging, or with the agencies that assist with
transition services, usually the local Center for Independent Living. To the contrary,
nursing facilities must cooperate in the process.
Residents and their families and friends need to understand that they may be given
reasons why a transition back home will not work. They may be told that services are not
available or are too costly. Individuals who are told this should understand their right to a
Medicaid appeal to challenge the denial of services and supports. It may also be
discovered that the nursing facility has simply never contacted the local agencies to begin
the process of transition to the community. If that is the case, residents and their families
should consider filing a complaint against the nursing facility.
For information on how to file a Medicaid appeal or a complaint, contact MPAS at
800.288.5923.
MPAS Update on Legal Action Recently Taken
Mark, Legal Director
In the last issue of Exchange, we highlighted some of the recent work of the Legal Team.
Three of those cases have now been settled.
The first of these cases was a suit brought against the Michigan Department of
Community Health (MDCH) for access to peer review records. MDCH ultimately
agreed with our position and stipulated in a court document that MPAS has, under the
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) statute, access
to peer review documents. The settlement of this case was important because agencies in
other states have not been as willing to settle and the challenges have been litigated all
the way to the Circuit Courts of Appeal. As this is a costly venture for everyone involved,
MPAS is appreciative of the willingness of MDCH to resolve this matter amicably.
In another case reported in Exchange, MPAS filed suit on behalf of a woman whose
apartment building would not install an accessible pathway to the sidewalk. We also
discussed a case where a child care center wanted to impose an additional cost on parents
of a three-year-old with cognitive impairments to keep her from wandering away from
the center. Both of these cases have been resolved under terms that cannot be disclosed.
Unfortunately, MPAS has had to continue to file lawsuits to enforce our rights of access
to records. Three cases were settled. One was against a community mental health service
program, one against a sheriff, and one against a nursing home. Two cases against
nursing homes are still pending in the courts.
MPAS also takes action to stop the evictions of individuals with mental illness. In one
instance, the client had been unrepresented in court and had unknowingly agreed to an
eviction. We intervened, had the eviction set aside, and worked out an agreement with the
landlord. In the other case, the police had been called to respond to the behavior of a
tenant. The police took him to a psychiatric hospital, where he was treated and released.
However, the housing commission invoked a provision of the lease that called for
eviction if the police are called because of the actions of a tenant. MPAS was able to have
that action dismissed and the client continues to live in his apartment.
Another case revolved around guardianship. Although guardianships are intended, in
theory, to protect the interests of individuals with disabilities, too often, they become
vehicles for the denial of rights. Such was the case with a young woman living in a
county and an adult foster care home where she did not wish to live. However, because
she was under a guardianship, she could not move to where she wanted to live. With
great effort, MPAS was able to have her case transferred to another county and,
eventually, the guardianship was dismissed.
Finally, MPAS took action by filing an administrative complaint against a child caring
institution where psychotropic medications were being used as a form of restraint. The
facility was found to be out of compliance with the law and MPAS is monitoring the
facility to make certain that this form of abuse does not continue.
What do CAIR Team Members do and how can
they be of Assistance?
Michelle, Director of Advocacy
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) is made up of teams specializing in
specific types of issues and investigations. One of them is the Community and
Institutional Rights Team – also known as the CAIR Team. This team provides
advocacy to individuals living in community or institutional settings. CAIR advocates
investigate allegations of abuse, neglect, and death throughout the state. They also
advocate for individuals who need services to remain in the community and assist those
who are moving from a facility and need help with discharge planning.
MPAS has the authority to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect, including cases
where someone with a disability has died. In addition to our authority to investigate, we
have access to information, people, and records that other agencies may not.
Other groups such as the police, child and adult protective services, the office of
Recipient Rights, and licensing – just to name a few – also have the responsibility to
investigate and are considered primary investigators or first responders. MPAS is
considered a secondary investigator. Among other things, we review investigations
conducted by the primary investigators to ensure that they were completed properly.
We gather a wide variety of documents and records in the course of investigations,
whereas other groups often look only at the information relevant to the rules and laws
that apply to them. For example, in a case where someone has died, MPAS would obtain
all relevant records. Some of those documents may include: ambulance transport records,
911 tapes, police records, witness statements, hospital records, autopsy and toxicology
records, case notes, court documents, medication logs, photos, video footage, and all
reports from primary investigators.
MPAS is the only organization that can access all of this information. After a thorough
review and analysis of the information, advocates determine if additional complaints
should be filed or whether a primary investigator should reopen the investigation.
If we believe that a violation occurred, we may file our own complaints and include
evidence to support them. We would also obtain the investigative findings of all of the
entities with which we file complaints and appeal their findings if necessary.
We might appeal the findings of an investigation if it was done incorrectly, is incomplete,
or doesn’t have an adequate remedy. For instance, there are times when, due to lack of
access authority, a primary investigation concludes before all relevant information has
been considered.
MPAS may issue a public report or press release about our investigative findings in order
to highlight a particular issue or concern. We may also use litigation (although we do not
represent individuals in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits) or try to get
legislators involved in order to correct a particular problem on a statewide or federal
level.
MPAS is bound by strict confidentiality laws. This means that we can only share
information with someone who is our client and, even then, there are exceptions about
what information can be shared.
We define client as an individual with a disability for whom we have agreed to provide a
service. If you call MPAS to report that someone with a disability has been abused or
neglected, there is certain information that we can share with you about our investigation;
however, there is also information that we cannot share. Even a legal guardian is blocked
from getting certain information about our investigations. If we are investigating a death,
we are not permitted to share our information with anyone, regardless of how we learned
about the death. If someone calls MPAS on behalf of someone with a disability,
generally we are unable to share information about our work unless we have
authorization to do so and even then, certain information cannot be shared with you.
If you see that someone with a disability has been abused or neglected and needs urgent
care, you should always call law enforcement and other emergency responders first.
Afterward, you should call MPAS to notify us of the situation. If we cannot assist you,
we’ll refer you to the agency or group who can. It’s always best to call us early so we can
quickly begin working on your behalf and gathering all the important information needed
to assist you.
For more information about the CAIR Team or MPAS, please call us at 800.288.5923.
Disability Experts Discuss Public Policy Issues
with U.S. Legislator
On a recent trip to Washington DC to attend the Disability Summit, disability advocates
Mark Lezotte of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman; Angela Martin, Developmental
Disability Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit; and Elmer L. Cerano, executive
director of MPAS met with U.S. Congressman Hanson Clark (D) Detroit, to discuss
public policy issues that impact the lives of people with disabilities and their families in
Michigan. The topics discussed included, Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of
Social Security, the Work Incentive and Planning Assistance (WIPA) programs and
Michigan's proposal to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for
coordinating services and supports for people who are eligible for both Medicare and
Medicaid.
CUTLINE: Mark Lezotte of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, PLLC; U.S.
Congressman Hanson Clark, Detroit; Angela Martin, Developmental Disability Institute
at Wayne State University in Detroit; and Elmer L. Cerano, executive director of MPAS.
Disability Advocates Speak up at Legislative
Luncheon
[PHOTO CUTLINE:] L to R: MPAS Board Member Donna DePalma, Mary Helfmann
from Senator Joe Hune’s office, MPAS Advocate Elham, and MPAS Attorney Niclole.
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) hosted a luncheon with Michigan
senators and representatives at a Legislative Luncheon held at the Capitol in downtown
Lansing, February 28, 2012.
Armed with packets of information, MPAS staff and Board members spoke with
legislators and their staff from across the state about the agency’s public policy platform,
current priorities, and mission.
Some of the topics discussed were:
 Tightening background checks of people who work with vulnerable individuals,
 Strengthening Michigan’s nursing home licensing system,
 Parity for mental health and autism coverage,
 Preserving the state law entitling special education supports and services from
birth through age 26,
 Improving protections for seniors and vulnerable adults,
 Preserving auto-no fault insurance law,
 Requiring guardians to have financial reporting requirements,
 Streamlining Medicare and Medicaid dual eligibility system,
 Replacing the internal Recipient Rights system with an independent, statewide
rights protection system.
PHOTO
HEAD: MPAS Gives Essay Award at Capitol
L to R: Representative Margaret O’Brien, Essay Contest Winner Scott Spicer, MPAS
Executive Director Elmer L. Cerano, and MPAS First Vice President Kate Pew
Wolters.
Each year, MPAS sponsors a Disability Advocacy Essay Contest. Writers are asked to
compose real, motivating stories about people with disabilities who have successfully
advocated for themselves or others and achieved success. Prizes are awarded to first,
second and third-place winners.
The MPAS Board of Directors conducted their quarterly meeting in the Speakers Library
following the legislative luncheon. Prior to discussing agency business, Scott Spicer read
his winning essay that told of how MPAS helped him in his struggle to win a
discrimination charge against a former employer. His essay won second place in the
contest and netted Scott a $200 award.
First-place essay winner Florida Harris and third-place winner Deanna Fooce were
unable to attend the meeting to read their essays; however, they each received awards of
$300 and $100 respectively. Read all essays in this issue.
MPAS Disability Essay Contest
Florida Harris – First Place Winner
The Complexities of a Normal Life
Hello everyone. My name is Florida Harris, and I have a disability of being slow. I am
from Pontiac, Michigan, divorced, and have four grown-up children. I also have 11
grandchildren. In addition, I only have a tenth-grade education. I currently live with my
daughter and guardian and her family in Detroit, Michigan. A few years ago, I moved to
a group home in September 2008, and I did not like how the group home was run.
In this particular group home, one could not use the telephone, could not have visitors or
go on outings, and could not clean up. I felt that these rules and regulations were not right
because due to me being a recipient, I have recipient rights. So, one day, I finally decided
to address my concerns and feelings toward some of these rules and regulations toward
staff. However, the things that I spoke up to staff about did not go through and everything
regarding the rules and regulations remained the same. I could not believe that anything
did not change. What I decided to do in order to be heard was to have every consumer
sign their names on a sheet of paper and have them vote on receiving phone calls as well
as using the phone, visiting, going on outings, and cleaning up. Even though I had done
these couple procedures, nothing still did not take effect right away. So, in around three
more weeks, Rochelle B. (staff) and Mr. Ray (staff) had approved everything that I have
spoken up about from receiving telephone calls, answering and using the telephone,
receiving visitors, going on outings, and doing chores. All of these changes have
happened a year later.
At the same time while living at the group home, I was attending a program. There were
rules and regulation that were in place at this program that I did not like as well. So, I
decided to speak up to staff on what was not taking place for us consumers in 2009 of
October. However, everything that I have addressed did not go into effect right away.
About one week later, I decided to address my feelings on the same issues again to staff.
Within the same week, the staff had approved each change that I addressed such as
talking on the telephones, taking us consumers on outings, and having visitors.
These changes had made me feel good about myself and from there I knew that I could
make a difference and not because of my disability. I now attend the Club House as of
August 24, 2011, and I have addressed about going on outings for us consumers – which
was approved right away.
MPAS Disability Essay Contest
Scott Spicer – Second Place Winner
Employment Discrimination Dispute Resolved
In fall of 2009 I was fired from my job after six weeks of paid leave and being forced to
see a psychiatrist due to concerns about my health and behavior. This came about after I
witnessed my co-workers making stigmatizing remarks about people with mental illness,
not knowing what to do or whether I would lose my job if they found out about me.
In an effort to advocate for myself during the six weeks that I was on paid leave and
following my termination, I went to my local Center for Independent Living to talk with a
Disability Rights Advocate. I shared my situation with him and was referred to MPAS.
With their guidance, I was able to obtain a private attorney who only charged me a small
retainer fee, helped me win my unemployment appeal and file a charge of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After nearly a year and
half, and many exhaustive efforts, I won a settlement from the EEOC Charge of
Discrimination.
Since November of 2009, (about two months after I was fired), I have been a member of
the Board of Directors at my local Center for Independent Living and working to help
others with mental illness as a Peer Support Specialist for over two years now. This was a
long, difficult and life changing process as I struggled for months just to keep a job and
maintain my finances while fighting my case with the unemployment appeals process,
EEOC investigation, preparing a legal complaint and even until the end with obtaining
the final settlement.
There were so many moments where I wanted to give up not just on this process, but on
myself, with very little hope that I could get my life back. Through the support of
professionals, co-workers, friends, family, my own determination and strong will, I was
able to find victory for myself and feel the personal gain of being able to help others who
are going through similar struggles. I have long been privileged enough to have the
opportunity to advocate for others and it wasn't until I faced my own personal situation
that I realized completely what it takes to fight for your rights. Thankfully, I can say that
all the hard work was worth it in the end.
MPAS Disability Essay Contest
Deanna Fooce – Third-Place Winner
Bullying
I have had a horrible life. I was abused for many years. I’m still working on getting over
that, but that’s not the story I’m going to tell you about. My story is about bullying. I
have been bullied many times. Once in the locker room after gym there were two other
girls in there with a camera. They took pictures of me with my clothes off. I was
humiliated, but what could I say? That night was the first night I cut myself. Another time
I was bullied was when a girl slammed my fingers in the door. I will tell you how I
survived. Believe me suicide came in mind more than once but what refrained me was
that I wasn’t the weak one. I am strong. I asked the bullies what makes me so different? I
have arms and legs, ten fingers and toes. So what makes me so bad? I had tears in my
eyes. It sunk in, and they bullied me no more.
MPAS Brian Appointed to
Michigan Rehabilitation Council
Governor Rick Snyder announced the appointment of MPAS Employment Advocacy
Director Brian, to the Michigan Rehabilitation Council.
The Council reviews, analyzes, and advises Michigan Rehabilitation Services, within the
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, regarding all rehabilitation
programs and policies administered in Michigan under the federal Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
Brian has more than 20 years of experience working with individuals with cognitive and
physical disabilities and a vast knowledge of federal and state laws as they pertain to
people with disabilities. He will represent the client assistance program established under
section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
“We highly value Brian’s contribution to our agency,” says MPAS Executive Director
Elmer L. Cerano. “His knowledge of the unique needs within the disability community
combined with his diverse advocacy skills, will be a tremendous asset to the Michigan
Rehabilitation Council.”
Brian will serve a three-year term that expires December 31, 2014. His appointment is
not subject to the advice and consent of the state Senate.
Disability Agency Names new Director of
Government and Media Relations
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS), the state’s designated protection
and advocacy agency for people with disabilities, has hired Christopher as Director of
Government and Media Relations, effective June 4, 2012. He succeeds Tom Masseau,
who accepted a position as executive director of Disability Rights Wisconsin after nearly
25 years with MPAS.
Rodriguez has experience working in Washington, D.C. with United Cerebral Palsy and
the National Association of Councils for Developmental Disabilities. In addition, he
served as the Director of Chapter Services for The Arc of Texas for four years and
currently sits on the organization’s Board of Directors.
He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California,
Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in Public Affairs from the University of Texas, where
he concentrated on social and economic policy.
“We are excited to welcome Chris to MPAS,” says Elmer L. Cerano, executive director
of MPAS. “We took our time and did a thorough search to find a successor for this
crucial position. We are confident that Chris’ passion for justice and knowledge of public
policy at the state and federal level will continue to advance the agency’s mission to
advocate and protect the legal rights of people with disabilities.”
From the Executive Director
Update on Dual Eligibility: Merging Medicare
and Medicaid
In the last issue of Exchange I reported on Michigan’s efforts to integrate funding and
services for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (Dual Eligibility).
Since that writing, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) made
their Plan public in advance of it being submitted to the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) in Washington, D.C.
I am very pleased to report that the drafters of the Plan clearly articulated the values and
principles that were recommended by a coalition of disability advocacy groups. The
foundation of the Plan is based on self-determination (a combination of skills,
knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated,
autonomous behavior) and centered around the needs and preferences of the person
served.
Although details on implementation remain sketchy, the guiding principles and values
upon which the Plan is based, are in lock-step with the advocates’ recommendations.
The sketchy details on implementation, however, could be problematic. After all, the
devil is always in the details.
With the continued excellent leadership of Mark Reinstein from the Mental Health
Association in Michigan and Dohn Hoyle from The Arc Michigan, the disability
advocacy coalition has made further recommendations related to implementation
strategies.
1. The Plan, as written, falls short on addressing how any of the deficiencies of the current
Community Mental Health (CMH) system will be corrected.
a. Do we still need 46 CMH Systems?
b. How will the disparity of service design and availability between the different
geographic parts of the state be corrected?
2. The Plan does not adequately address rights protection for service recipients.
a. The Plan ignores the recommendation from its work groups that a single, statewide,
independent entity is needed to handle all rights, grievances, appeals, and dispute
resolution matters.
b. The work group recommended that this single, independent entity have the capacity
and authority to address right violations through a series of strategies including informal
discussions up to and including litigation. This recommendation was made for two
reasons:
i The multitude of existing rights mechanisms have created an impossible maze.
ii The existing rights programs are not independent and are under the control of
the service providers.
3. A glaring omission in the Plan is the lack of independent facilitation to assist eligible
individuals navigate the service delivery system.
4. The Plan does not clearly state that the individuals served have a choice in which Integrated
Care Organization (ICO) they wish to use.
5. The Plan does not clarify the dual management and fiscal responsibility of the ICO and Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP) related to medication prescriptions.
6. The Plan does not provide for the ongoing involvement by people who depend on the service
delivery system (including people with disabilities, their families, and advocates) in the
development and review of Request for proposals to implement this program.
7. The Plan does not specify the types of services and supports that will be available to people
who are eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare --- but not both.
8. Although a change in the definition of poverty levels will increase the number of Medicaid
eligible individuals, Medicaid “spend-down” issues need to be resolved.
9. Finally, the overall evaluation of the Plan’s success must clearly reflect consumer satisfaction.
As written, the Plan begs the question: “How will things change or improve if all of the
administrative structures related to maintaining 46 CMH Boards and 18 PIHPs and
numerous ineffective internal rights protection systems remain intact?”
It is anticipated that CMS may send the Plan, or portions of the Plan, back to be rewritten
because it does not go far enough in restructuring the multiple administrative levels of
bureaucracies in delivering integrated services and supports funded by Medicare and
Medicaid.
Over the next several months MPAS, with its sister disability advocacy organizations is
committed to working with the Michigan Department of Community Health in making
Michigan’s Dual Eligibility Plan a national model of self-determination, person-centered
planning, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.
Once again, this discussion is far from over Stay tuned for future updates.
Elmer L. Cerano
Executive Director
The 2011 Annual Report is Available
Now available is the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service Annual Report in
several different formats. Review it in pdf format, txt, or Microsoft Word on the MPAS
Web site at www.mpas.org. If you would prefer a paper copy, there are some available
on a first come, first served basis by calling 800.288.5923
Assistive Technology Information You Can Use
The Michigan Assistive Technology Loan Fund provides low-cost, fixed-rate loans to
qualified applicants to finance the purchase of assistive technology devices and services.
Up to $30,000 can be borrowed for wheelchairs, scooters, hearing aids, vision aids,
vehicle and home modifications, and much more. For information, see
www.ucp.michigan.org.
AT Xchange is a Michigan-based Web site where individuals can buy, sell or give away
assistive technology items. These items are listed by category. Within the categories, the
individual listings will give you the name of the item, pictures, cost (if applicable), and
the location of the item. Check out the Web site for information about assistive
technology and other available resources at www.copower.org/AT.
Assistive Technology News has launched www.atechnews.com to assist the nation’s 56million people with disabilities stay abreast of assistive technology products that enhance
their independence and improve their quality of life. This Web site includes information,
from new product introductions, to advocate profiles, to product evaluation, to interviews
with leaders in the public and private sectors working on disability issues, to policies that
impact people with disabilities.
Board of Directors
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service
Michelle Huerta, Esq.
President
Livonia
Kate Pew Wolters
First Vice President
Grand Rapids
Thomas H. Landry
Second Vice President
Highland
John P. McCulloch
Treasurer
Royal Oak
Mark R. Lezotte, Esq.
Immediate Past President
Detroit
Pamela Bellamy, Ph.D.
Secretary
Lansing
Mark Brewer, Esq.
Clinton Township
Ronald D. Bush II, JD
West Bloomfield
Donna DePalma, LMSW
Pinckney
Kathy McGeathy
Flint
Ann E. Manning, BS, C.B.I.S.
Clarkston
Susan L. Odgers
Traverse City
Stoney Polman, LPC
St. Johns
Jane Shank
Interlochen
Frederick A. Swegles
Director Emeritus
Port Huron
Frederick F. (Rick) Swegles, Esq.
Port Huron
Frank Turnage, MLM MSA
Roscommon
For more information, call 800.288.5923 or 517.487.1755
Exchange is an official publication of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
(MPAS).
4095 Legacy Parkway
Suite 500
Lansing, Michigan 48911-4263
Telephone 517.487.1755
TOLL FREE:
800.288.5923
Fax: 517.487.0827
http://www.mpas.org
Find us on Facebook
Voice/TTY/Language and accommodations available. Available in alternative formats
upon request.
Elmer L. Cerano
Executive Director