The question in this case is whether the law requires the Department of Health (DOH) and Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) to place a minor with developmental disabilities in a residential facility or provide other specific services.
This case arises from the involuntary hospitalization of Oliviah CC., a teenager with complex development disabilities. When Oliviah was 16, she was taken to the emergency room when her school reported that she was behaving in a way that couldn’t be managed at school. Her mother refused to accept Oliviah’s discharge from the hospital, and the Clinton County Department of Social Services supported the mother’s decision. Oliviah’s school district tried to find a residential school that would accept her, and OPWDD liaised with its regional offices and voluntary agencies to try to arrange for Oliviah to be discharged. Neither succeeded. Olivia was thus stuck in the hospital, “where she could not attend school, participate in community activities or go outdoors.”
After Oliviah had been stranded for 15 days, Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) petitioned under CPLR articles 70 and 78 for her release, claiming that DOH’s and OPWDD’s failure to ensure Oliviah’s discharge was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that only school districts had the authority to place children outside their homes, and issued a conditional order allowing MHLS to amend its petition in order to name Oliviah’s school district as a respondent. Oliviah was released from the hospital before MHLS could amend its petition. Supreme Court therefore dismissed the petition.
The Third Department affirmed. It began by deciding two procedural issues. First, it ruled that although Oliviah’s release from the hospital technically rendered the case moot, the exception to the mootness doctrine applied because the case presented an important and recurring issue that typically evades review. Second, the Third Department ruled that Supreme Court properly ordered the school district a respondent because the district was authorized to place Oliviah in a residential school.
On the substance, the Third Department held that Supreme Court had no power to craft an equitable remedy based on a due process violation, such as a requirement that Oliviah be afforded notice and a hearing, because MHLS’s petition did not assert a due process violation. The court also held that Supreme Court had no power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel OPWDD to provide her with any specific services. Mandamus to compel, the court explained, is available only when a court can order a party to take a mandatory action. And OPWDD’s choice between specific services is discretionary, not mandatory, so mandamus to compel is unavailable. Finally, the court rejected MHLS’s two federal claims: It held that MHLS’s claim that DOH failed to act “with reasonable promptness” in providing services arose under a provision of the Medicaid Act for which no private right of action exists. And it ruled that MHLS’s claim that DOH and OPWDD violated federal regulations barring discrimination against disabled people failed to allege that either agency discriminated against Oliviah.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.