Urban Justice Urban Justice Center individual rights - social change

Donate
Justice e-Lerts
Mental Health

Litigation

Mental Health


Martinez v. Astrue

On September 24, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval of a settlement agreement reached between plaintiffs and the Social Security Administration ("SSA") in this national class action challenging SSA's policy of relying on outstanding warrant information to suspend or deny benefits.

A law passed in 1996 prohibits payment of benefits to individuals who are "fleeing to avoid prosecution" for a felony. Rather than attempting to determine whether a person is actually fleeing, SSA had been using a crude computer matching system to suspend or deny benefits based only on an outstanding warrant, resulting in the suspension of benefits of thousands of elderly, poor, and disabled Americans who are not "wanted," and in some cases may have been completely misidentified.

SSA's so-called "Fugitive Felon Program" has been held illegal in several federal cases. Indeed, due to Fowlkes v. Adamec, a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and in which UJC appeared with other organizations as amicus curiae, SSA had to suspend much of the program in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. However, until the settlement in Martinez, SSA continued its policy in the rest of the country.

Beginning April 1, 2009, and pursuant to the settlement agreement, SSA will only suspend or deny benefits based on warrants that are issued for flight or escape. The settlement also provides relief to hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries whose benefits have been suspended or denied in the past.

Approximately 80,000 individuals suspended or denied after January 1, 2007 or who had a live, pending administrative claim as of August 11, 2008 will be reinstated and paid back benefits worth a total of at least $500 million. Within this group, recipients of Social Security disability or retirement benefits are scheduled to be reinstated retroactively by June, 2010. Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") recipients are scheduled to receive full retroactive reinstatement by December, 2010. For these class members, it will not be necessary to file a new application. The process should be automatic for OASDI recipients, but SSI recipients will have to re-establish financial eligibility.

Those suspended or denied between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 will receive notice and the opportunity to be reinstated as of April 1, 2009. These individuals are scheduled to receive a notice by December 31, 2010. The proposed settlement also provides for relief of the repayment of "overpayment" of benefits assessed by SSA under this policy.

This unlawful policy has had devastating consequences on the lives of elderly, poor, and disabled individuals, many of whom rely upon Social Security benefits as their only income and, without their rightfully due benefits, have been unable to pay for rent or other basic necessities. This settlement will allow class members – many of whom have been rendered destitute, homeless, and dependent on relatives and charity – to rebuild their lives.

Representation of plaintiffs was led by National Senior Citizens Law Center and pro bono counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson, and included MHP, Disability Rights California, and Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.

Further details regarding the implementation of this settlement will be posted to this webpage in the future. You may also call Emilia Sicilia at (646) 602-5668 for additional information.

For more information, see the links below.

Brad H. v. City of New York

The Urban Justice Center filed this class action lawsuit in 1999, challenging New York City's practice of discharging people with psychiatric disabilities from the city jails in the middle of the night with only $1.50 and two tokens, and without any psychiatric medication or referral to services. In 2003, the parties settled the case with an agreement that the City would provide the 15,000 people who receive psychiatric treatment in city jails each year with discharge planning services, including continued mental health care, case management, and assistance in accessing public benefits and housing.

  • Click here for the Brad H. vs. City of New York special section.
Taylor v. State of New York, et al.

On December 8, 2008, UJC filed a class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against the State of New York alleging that the State has violated Article XVII of the New York State Constitution by not providing a basic grant level for public assistance that meets the most basic needs of poor New Yorkers. Under the New York State Constitution, the State must provide for the "aid, care and support" of the needy and define the standard of need for its citizens. One of the ways the State purports to meet its obligation to care for the needy is by providing monthly basic grants of public assistance. However, the Legislature last adjusted the amount of New York's basic public assistance grant in 1989, nearly 20 years ago. In the years since, the cost of living in New York has dramatically increased and thus the grant is grossly inadequate. Indeed, NYC's Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) recently developed a measure to more accurately determine poverty in the City. Using the CEO's poverty measure, the basic public assistance grant amounts to approximately one half of the "bare minimum" it has determined it costs to live just above the poverty line.

  • PDF Read the Complaint
  • Pro bono co-counsel: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
  • Co-counsel: Economic Justice Project and Main Street Legal Services of the City University of New York School of Law
Messiah S. v. Alexander

On February 22, 2007, MHP filed a class action lawsuit, Messiah S. v. Alexander, challenging the lack of pre-release services, also known as discharge planning, for people with psychiatric disabilities being released from New York State prisons. Pre-release services are meant to help prisoners transition back into the community by connecting them to treatment, medications, housing, and public benefits. Without these supportive services, many individuals decompensate, become homeless, and eventually return to jail. We estimate that there are currently more than 6,000 individuals either awaiting release to New York City or on parole who should have received these pre-release services.

  • Pro bono co-counsel: Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
    Co-counsel: The Legal Aid Society
  • PDF Read the Complaint
Clark v. Barnhart

UPDATE: On September 22nd, 2008, the court granted defendant's summary judgment motion. We are currently appealing the case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Filed on December 26, 2006, this national class action lawsuit suit has the potential to restore Social Security benefits to tens of thousands of disabled and retired Americans. The Social Security Administration (SSA) uses a crude computer-matching system to suspend the benefits of people who *appear* to have failed to comply with probation or parole. No actual verification of these results is done before summarily suspending desperately needed benefits. Nor does SSA double-check to guard against mistaken identity and identity-theft. People with psychiatric disabilities are especially vulnerable because they have a harder time dealing with SSA bureaucracy and are more likely to have had police interactions.

  • Pro bono co-counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Co-counsel: National Senior Citizens Law Center
  • PDF Read the Complaint
Fowlkes v. Adamec

On December 6, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the Social Security Administration's practice of assuming that anyone with an outstanding warrant is a fugitive felon, and stated that SSA must first determine whether the person intended to flee prosecution.

Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson

New York State has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by warehousing over 4,000 persons with mental illness in large adult homes in New York City, according to a ruling issued September 8, 2009, by a U.S. District Court Judge. In the landmark decision, Judge Garafuis found that the state has "denied thousands of individuals with mental illness in New York City the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs." The decision came after a month-long trial in May and June 2009. In 2003, Disability Advocates, Inc., the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, MFY Legal Services, Inc., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, and the Mental Health Project filed the suit, seeking supported housing with appropriate supports for adult home residents with mental illness.

Harris v. Eggleston

In 2002, Mental Health Project ("MHP") lawyers discovered that the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") was illegally terminating food stamps of people in desperate need, and filed this federal class action to address the problem. Despite years of warnings from the United States Department of Agriculture, HRA and the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance employed a computer program that automatically terminated the food stamps of welfare recipients who were approved for SSI (the federal benefit for people who are poor and severely disabled), despite their eligibility under the Food Stamps Act.

In 2007, working together with pro bono co-counsel at Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP and lawyers from the Urban Justice Center's Homelessness Outreach and Prevention Project, MHP won a very favorable settlement. In 2008, under the settlement, the City and State began repaying over $12 million in food stamps to tens of thousands of disabled New Yorkers just before Thanksgiving. The benefits of this class action are not merely retroactive, however. Due to Harris, roughly 6,000 additional people each year will now continue to receive food stamps when they switch from welfare to SSI.

MHP is joined in this suit with the Homelessness Outreach and Prevention Project of the UJC, with Pro bono co-counsel by Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP.

Koskinas v. Cuomo

The Mental Health Project was counsel to the class in this class action lawsuit that established what have become known as "Koskinas" rights: the right of individuals with psychiatric disabilities who are inpatients in psychiatric units in New York City hospitals to receive discharge planning prior to their release into the community. Discharge planning requires hospital staff to provide their patients with linkages to mental health services, including access to housing, benefits, medication and outpatient treatment, upon their release. Mental Health Project staff continue to enforce the rights established in Koskinas by advocating for patients in psychiatric units across New York City.

  • Pro bono co-counsel: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
    Co-counsel: New York Lawyers for the Public Interest


This section of the site uses Adobe ACROBAT READER

  • 123 William Street 16th Floor New York, NY, 10038
  • Phone: 646.602.5600
  • Fax: 212.533.4598