ILNews

Full appeals court decides on IPAS case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nine months ago, a federal judge in Indianapolis refused to dismiss a case about the state's practices and programs regarding mentally ill inmates, finding an independent state agency had a right to sue on those issues.

But within a week, a three-judge federal appellate panel ruled the opposite way against that the same plaintiff in a different suit, essentially sweeping that first ruling by U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton under a legal rug and forcing him to reconsider the dismissal.

The case that Judge Hamilton handled remains ongoing and is set for bench trial early next year, but not before Judge Hamilton because he's since been elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now as an appellate jurist and writing for the full court en banc, Judge Hamilton today found a chance to weigh in on identical issues he'd faced a year ago at the lower court level.

Writing for eight other majority members who disagreed with the one dissenter, Judge Hamilton authored a 63-page opinion that essentially came to the same conclusion that he'd reached on the other case - finding the agency has a right to sue and not dismissing the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services suit.

In rehearing en banc the case of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al. No. 08-3183, the appellate court articulately delved into legislative history and intent as well as caselaw to come up with a decision that touches on broader issues about states rights and federalist principles about when court jurisdiction is appropriate.

The court affirmed a decision from U.S. Judge Larry McKinney, removing the state of Indiana and Family and Social Services Administration as defendants but keeping alive the claims against the named state officials. Specifically, the court held the 11th Amendment does not bar plaintiff IPAS from seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the state officials because the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 provides that cause of action, and that plaintiff is entitled to access peer review records of treatment of covered mentally ill patients.

Basically, the court held the opposite of what the three-judge panel found last summer: the agency doesn't have standing to bring suits in federal court because of the 11th amendment and state statutes haven't given IPAS the powers listed in 42 U.S.C Sections 10805 and 10806.

Filed in late 2006, IPAS sued FSSA, LaRue Carter Memorial Hospital, and several state officials in order to gain records on a mentally disabled adult patient who died while at LaRue Carter to find out if she was a victim of abuse. Judge Larry McKinney had decided the defendants had to hand over the records because the victim was an adult and her parents weren't appointed her legal guardians, but the FSSA argued releasing the records would violate the victim's parents' privacy.

Relying the three principal types of exceptions to the 11th Amendment's bar, the majority found that the Supreme Court of the United States has held immunity goes away once a state official acts outside the scope of his or her authority.

"Congress gave each state the choice to establish a protection and advocacy system as either an independent state agency or a private not-for-profit entity," Judge Hamilton wrote. "Indiana made the choice to set up IPAS as an independent state agency. If we gave that choice any weight in the 11th Amendment inquiry, we would be permitting Indiana to use its own choice ... as a means to shield its state hospitals and institutions from the very investigative and oversight powers that Congress funded to protect some of the state's most vulnerable citizens. That result would be strange indeed."

Judge Richard Posner issued a concurring opinion, noting that he joins the majority "without reservation" but wrote separately to emphasize what he sees as practical considerations on the right to sue to obtain patient records for the mentally ill.

"Independent as it is of the governor and the attorney general, IPAS is a state entity in name only, especially in a suit against a state hospital - there it's an agent of the federal government, suing to assure a state's compliance with the federal duties of care for the mentally ill that the state agreed to perform," Judge Posner wrote. "It would be strange if a state could render the federal statute unenforceable by creating (or appointing) a public rather than a private protection and advocacy agent, or if the statute were unenforceable against state hospitals even though there is (as I think we all agree) no issue of state sovereign immunity."

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook was the sole dissenter, saying that he would have dismissed the suit and let the administrative process take its course.

"Both (plaintiffs and defendants) believe that they have the patients' interests at heart, though they disagree about how to serve those interests," he wrote. "Fights between two state agencies should be resolved within the state (including the state's judiciary, if state law so provides, or through the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services which administers the federal grant program. This statute establishes a program of cooperative federalism. Cooperation usually requires negotiation and compromise among multiple public bodies. That is the way of the administrative rather than the judicial process."

The chief judge pointed out the majority's rationale seems to fundamentally conflict with SCOTUS precedent. He wrote, "Perhaps my colleagues have a wise view as a matter of policy, but the Supreme Court's perspective is the one we must use in a hierarchical judicial system."

If this ruling stands and isn't appealed to the nation's highest court, it would likely impact the case of IPAS v. Indiana Department of Correction, 1:08-CV-11317, which Judge Hamilton had decided on July 21, 2009, and is now before Chief Judge Richard L. Young. A motion for class certification is pending and the federal court docket shows a five-day bench trial is set for July 25, 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT