Back to Links
WHAT IS SANBOURNE V. CHILES?
It is a lawsuit begun in April 1989 in federal court. The purpose of the lawsuit was to improve conditions at South Florida State Hospital and to bring about better mental health services in the community for everyone in South Florida.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?
The people who brought the lawsuit are the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc., and certain residents of South Florida State Hospital. They are called the plaintiffs. The lawsuit aims to help people who are or have been residents of SFSH. They are called class members. Finally, the parties representing mental health services in South Florida are the defendants. They are the Governor of Florida, the Secretary of HRS, and the administrator of SFSH.
AM I A CLASS MEMBER?
You are a class member if you live at South Florida State Hospital. You are also a class member if you were discharged from SFSH within the past 18 months. For example, if you were discharged on April 30, 1995, you are a class member until October 30, 1996. After you have been discharged eighteen months you will cease being a class member.
WHY AND WHEN WAS THIS CASE SETTLED?
On the first week of September 1993, a "Stipulation for Settlement" was signed. This agreement was developed when Judge Nesbitt ordered the plaintiffs and the defendants to negotiate with a court appointed mediator. Under this agreement, the parties spent many hours between April and September trying to reach an agreement. All had to consider the strengths and weaknesses of their side and make difficult decisions about what they could agree on and what they could not give up.
A consent decree is an agreement by the parties that is approved by the judge and becomes an order of the court. It has the same effect as if there had been a trial and the judge issued a court order. The Stipulation became a consent decree after the judge approved it after a fairness hearing in January 1994. There are many more improvements we wished to make. In reality, we were in danger of getting even less from the court than we did. All things considered, we believe we have done the best that we could at this time. If all goes well, the agreement will be over around April 1998. If things do not go well, and it is necessary to go back to court, then the case may go on longer.
WHAT DOES THE STIPULATION DO FOR ME IF I LIVE AT SFSH?
1. Improvements at SFSH made since 1988 must be kept. Planned improvements must be completed, such as service planning. If this is not done, we can ask the court to hold the defendants in contempt.
2. Other improvements are promised, although not enforceable by the court.
3. Your discharge plan must be handled better. You have a right to an individual discharge plan that states where you will live and the services you will receive. If you are dissatisfied with this, you may ask for a meeting by a discharge review board. If you are still dissatisfied, then an independent arbitrator can require the plan to be revised to meet your needs. The plan must at the very least not place you at "substantial risk of harm" once you are discharged. In our opinion, this means that if there is a good chance you might be hurt, the plan is not acceptable.
4. You can request help in the discharge planning process from the Advocacy Center and the attorneys. There is no charge for their help.5. You have a right to the continuation of planned services for thirty days after discharge from SFSH. This is a right that you did not have before the stipulation. It means that we can ask the federal judge to make the defendants continue to provide services. We cannot make them do so for more than thirty days, but it is our hope that they will. Further, we hope that this agreement will help to bring more services into the community.
WHAT DOES THE STIPULATION DO FOR ME IF I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY NOW?
Unfortunately, mental health consumers do not have as many legal rights to services in the community as in the hospital. However, we hope this agreement will help improve community services. For example, if you are a class member, and are living in conditions of abuse and/or neglect, you have a right to ask the federal judge to make the defendants do something for you. The lawyers will help you with this. Before taking your complaint to the judge, we will talk to the defendants. They have agreed to try to solve your problems quickly, so we hope that they will do so and avoid going to court. If you are having a problem, please call us.
HOW ELSE CAN THE STIPULATION HELP ME?
The plaintiffs receive payments from the defendants. With these, the Advocacy Center has hired a monitor . There is an Advocacy Center office near SFSH to be close to what is happening. The monitor, Patty Cooper, is available to help class members personally and to make sure the agreement is carried out. This monitoring is very important, for we can return to court if we are not satisfied with how the agreement is working. Other parts of the agreement require the defendants to work with the Advocacy Center and your lawyers and their experts to make the hospital and the community system better. These are also very important agreements.
IS SFSH LIKELY TO CLOSE?
In May 1993 HRS recommended closing SFSH, but this cannot happen unless the Florida Legislature approves it. The Broward County Legislative Delegation held public hearings, and recommended that instead of closing SFSH, more money should be spent to improve the hospital and to provide more community services. In its last session, the legislature considered downsizing or closing SFSH and replacing it with a smaller, privately run facility. The Sanbourne plaintiffs opposed this effort until there can be clear assurances in word and deed that necessary services will be provided in the community. It is uncertain what the final outcome will be.
THE CONSUMER ADVISORY FORUM
The Sanbourne vs. Chiles lawsuit addresses both SFSH and community issues, and we seek input from consumers on the following topics:
1) Current Conditions at SFSH
2) Suggestions for Change at SFSH
3) Current conditions at facilities in Districts 9, 10, 11 & 15
4) Suggestions for Change in Community ServicesThe Consumer Advisory Forum has been formed to allow consumers to advise the plaintiffs and to make suggestions for improvement in hospital and community services. We will meet from time to time at locations to be announced. Occasionally representatives from the forum will meet with the legal team to express consumer concerns and make recommendations. For information, contact Sally Clay, the consumer consultant for the plaintiffs, or other members of the plaintiff team: