Protection and Advocacy, Inc.

3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 902, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512

Telephone: (213) 427-8747 Fax: (213) 427-8767

Toll Free/TTY/TDD: (800) 776-5746

TO: Interested Persons

FROM: Dov Lutzker and Ellen Goldblatt

RE: Supported Living - Cost Cap Is Overturned By A Second Admin. Law Judge

DATE: October 8, 1999

Great news! Attached hereto are both administrative due process hearing decisions that find that California Code of Regulations Title 17 Section 58617, which places a cost-cap on supported living services, is illegal because it conflicts with the legislative intent of the Lanterman Act. In the latest 24 page decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) states, "The DDS regulation alters and amends [California Welfare and Institutions Code] section 4689 and impairs its scope. . . The DDS regulation. . . limits a consumer’s opportunity to pursue the goal of living in his or her own home by tying the cost to the cost of a completely different, more restrictive, living arrangement. This is not consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to effectuate its purpose. To the contrary--the DDS regulation is in conflict with the statute."

In this case, the decision of GGRC denying the consumer supported living services was overturned. The ALJ recognized that the IPP goal of living in a supported living arrangement itself cannot fail to be cost effective, rather: "According to the terms of the Lanterman Act, the correct question is: Among the choices of services and supports available for achieving claimant’s goal of living in his own home, are the proposed services and supports cost effective." The ALJ further stated, "by telling claimant that it would not fund supported living if it were to cost more than his current living arrangement, regional center was, in effect, refusing to pursue the supported living goal that it had agreed should be part of his IPP."

The consumer is very excited to move from the Level 2 Community Care Facility into his own home with supports. Administrative hearing decisions are not binding precedent on hearing officers in other administrative fair hearing cases. However, they are persuasive in similar cases. Therefore, you may bring the decision to the attention of regional centers considering this issue and to the attention of hearing officers in similar cases. PAI continues to be interested in instances where individuals are being kept from moving to supported living arrangements by regional center reliance on the unlawful cost cap or by any other barriers. Call PAI for an intake appointment.