Urban Justice Center individual rights - social change

Donate
Justice e-Lerts
Mental Health

Litigation

Mental Health

Padro et al v. Astrue

On April 12, 2011, the Mental Health Project filed a class action lawsuit charging systematic bias against low-income disabled individuals seeking Social Security disability benefits in Queens. The suit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) seeks the disqualification of five Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at SSA's Queens Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) because of their persistent denial of claims based on glaring and intentional legal and procedural errors, thereby depriving thousands of eligible claimants of benefits they need to survive.

The Queens ODAR has the third highest benefits-denial rate in the country and the highest benefits-denial rate in the New York region, based on data covering decisions from 2005 to 2008. Almost all of the ALJs named in the suit rank high on the national list of top claims deniers. On appeal, the Queens ODAR suffers one of the highest remand rates in the country.

The lawsuit details a history of persistent and intentional denials by the ALJs of disability claims, and provides compelling evidence of their anti-claimant bias. These errors have persisted despite repeated warnings and reversals by the federal court in Brooklyn. In prior rulings, that court has used various phrases to describe the problem with ALJs from Queens ODAR, including:

  • Proceedings that were "a far cry" from the required standards;
  • Conduct that "raises the possibility that the ALJ was not seeking to neutrally develop the record, but rather to find support for the conclusions he had already formed"
  • Analysis that was "deficient" and "incoherent"
  • Delay that was "particularly egregious"
  • Rationale that was "plucked from thin air"
  • Analysis that "trivializes plaintiff's impairments"
  • Overall conduct that demonstrates "serious negligence and could possibly even suggest bias"

While these findings came in individual cases over three years, this is the first lawsuit to weave those findings together, and with other evidence of bias, as a basis to seek the disqualification of most of the members (5 of 8) of a local Social Security hearing office.

The suit was filed in conjunction with pro bono counsel at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.


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.

Clark v. Astrue

On March 18, 2011, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein certified a nationwide class in MHP’s challenge to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) policy of suspending and denying Social Security and SSI benefits whenever someone had an outstanding warrant for an alleged violation of probation or parole. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously ruled that the SSA cannot suspend a recipient's benefits based solely on an outstanding warrant for a probation or parole violation was unlawful, and that an outstanding warrant is not sufficient evidence that an SSA beneficiary is in fact violating probation or parole.

The district court has now certified a nationwide class of individuals whose Social Security or SSI benefits were suspended or denied on or after October 29, 2006. It is estimated the class easily numbers in many tens of thousands of people who have been deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars. Plaintiffs filed a motion on March 22, 1011 seeking clarification of the class definition with respect to inclusion of 1) individuals whose benefits were suspended or denied prior to October 29, 2006 but had an appeal pending on that date and 2) individuals who received a notice of overpayment on or after October 29, 2006.

Filed on December 26, 2006, this national class action lawsuit challenged SSA’s use of 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.

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. Unfortunately the City has failed to comply with the settlement agreement. We have asked the court to extend the settlement agreement for an additional two years and to order the City to modify its failed policies which have prevented the City from complying with its obligations.

Pro bono co-counsel: Debevoise & Plimpton
Co-counsel: New York Lawyers for the Public Interest

  • Click here for the Brad H. vs. City of New York special section.

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

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