OCRA celebrates 5 years of service to regional center consumers

The Office of Clients’ Rights Advocacy (OCRA) is celebrating its 5 th year of providing services to consumers at California’s 21 regional centers. OCRA provides services to more than 8,000 people a year — in such areas of the law as special education, regional center services, public benefits, and juvenile dependency.

OCRA’s success shows not only in the number of consumers helped, but also in consumer satisfaction surveys, which are sent randomly to every 4 th case closed. Results are almost all above 90%. Consumers who answered the survey questions agree that:

• OCRA staff treated them well; and

• They would ask their clients’ rights advocate for help again.

Below are several examples of this year’s OCRA cases.

Nursing for medically fragile child

Philip V is 9 years old. He has cerebral palsy, developmental disabilities, a seizure disorder, and scoliosis. He had a tracheostomy removed and laryngotracheal reconstruction. He also has a g-tube for feeding. Philip V was getting 18 hours a day of licensed vocational nursing (LVN) services and one hour a week of registered nurse (RN) supervisory care. In December 2000, Medi-Cal reassessed Philip V’s needs and decided that his condition had improved. His parents settled for 84 hours a week of LVN and RN nursing care.

In May 2002, Medi-Cal notified his parents that they were reducing Philip V’s nursing hours from 84 to 45 hours a week. OCRA and Philip V’s parents went to an administrative hearing, where OCRA argued that:

• Philip V still needs a professional nurse for suctioning, mixing and administering medications through his g-tube or nebulizer; and

• He would have to be in a pediatric subacute-care facility if he were not getting care at home.

A doctor confirmed his needs. The judge ruled in Philip V’s favor, and Medi-Cal agreed to authorize EPSDT and private day nursing at the pediatric subacute level.

Rose F files complaint for others

In January 2001, Rose F moved in with Cindy P, who worked for an independent living skills agency. It seemed ideal. Rose F would have the support she needed to move into supported living from a woman dedicated to regional center clients. But after Rose F moved out, she admitted that Cindy P had verbally abused, intimidated and threatened her. And Rose F had recorded the abuse on audiotape.

The regional center investigated. OCRA offered to file a complaint. Rose F said no, because she did not want Cindy P to be punished or fired. But after thinking it over, she decided it was more important to protect the rights of other consumers. The regional center agreed to keep Cindy P from working with consumers, and notified other regional centers in the area. Rose F is happy to know that no other consumer will have to endure what she did.

Special education services continue.

Nick B, who is 12, is eligible for special education services. He was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, high functioning autism, depression, Tourette syndrome, and obsessive compulsive disorder. After an assessment, the school district claimed that Nick B was not eligible for special education services, except the speech therapy he was already getting.

OCRA represented Nick B at a hearing in 2000, where the district agreed to provide extensive services and an evaluation. But when the school year ended, the district refused to continue services. At a hearing in August 2002, with OCRA again representing Nick B, the district agreed that the boy qualified for special education services as a child with autism. They also agreed to provide him with a one-on-one aide, resource specialist time, speech and language services, occupational therapy consultations until the assessment is completed, and social skills training.

Protective supervision granted

John M, a 10-year-old boy, is blind and has moderate mental retardation. He has SSI and IHSS benefits, but IHSS would not authorize 24-hour protective supervision. When John M’s mother appealed, an IHSS evaluator found that he had no self-endangering behaviors. OCRA and John M’s mother both presented evidence of John M’s need for protective supervision. The administrative law judge agreed, and found that IHSS’s decision was not consistent with medical evidence supporting John M’s need for 24-hour protective supervision.

Group home closed after violations

Tamara H is an articulate 50-year-old woman with mental retardation. Her mother called OCRA when a group home locked her out from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. OCRA investigated and found other violations of residents’ rights. The care provider ignored the dirty bathroom so long that Tamara H would clean it so she could use it. There was almost no food in the refrigerator, the residents hardly ever had fruit or vegetables, and food was mostly fried. OCRA arranged to move Tamara H to her mother’s home while the regional center looked for an apartment for her. OCRA also reported the situation to Community Care Licensing, and the home was closed.

AAP rate increased

Derrick M’s father called OCRA when the Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) did not raise his grant from $1,051 to $1,800 a month as the regional center recommended. OCRA helped him file a hearing request and gave him information he needed to represent his 11-year-old son. At the hearing, an AAP representative and the father negotiated a settlement that would raise the AAP rate to the recommended level.