At
issue was the extent to which proving eligibility
lies with the family seeking services, and an
important difference between state law and DDD
regulations. The court has clearly sided with
families, giving their experience with disability
more credibility, and ruling that DDD overstepped
its authority to limit services defined in state
and federal law.
The
decision will have an impact on individuals
who are applying for DDD services after the
age of 22, especially many with Asperger's Syndrome,
who may not have been diagnosed or received
services when younger.
The
case was brought by Paul Prior, Esq., of Hinkle,
Fingles & Prior, a disability law firm with
offices in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It is
one of more than a dozen the firm has brought
on behalf of people with disabilities before
the State Supreme Court.
The
plaintiff in the case, T.H., is a fifty-four
year old man with Asperger’s Syndrome,
who lived with his parents all his life. Asperger’s
Syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism,
is a lifelong developmental disability characterized
by a severe and sustained impairment of social
interactions, the development of restricted,
repetitive patterns of behavior and interests,
resulting in significant impairment in social,
occupational and other areas of life functioning.
T.H.’s parents provided for all of his
care, and had never applied for state services.
After the parents’ death, however, T.H.’s
sister applied for DDD eligibility when it became
clear that she could not continue his care at
home.
State
law governing DDD eligibility requires the presence
of a developmental disability prior to age twenty-two,
which results in functional limitations in at
least three of six life skills areas. Until
now, DDD’s administrative rules added
an additional burden requiring that an individual’s
functional limitations be documented before
age twenty-two. That difference is the crux
of the case, since DDD rejected the evidence
offered by the family, without regard to their
credibility, but on grounds that their evidence
was “anecdotal” and not “documentary.”
T.H.’s
sister, who testified in the case, described
his lifelong rigidity, reclusive behavior, obsessive
preoccupations, and social isolation. She recounted
how he would not attend family gatherings or
social functions, going so far as to miss work
on days that social events were scheduled. She
described his inability to make eye contact
during conversation and his constant monologues
on matters of little or no interest to his listener.
T.H.
held down a job that was developed for him by
his father in the family business. When the
business was sold, T.H.’s employment was
continued as a condition of the sale of the
business to outsiders. While he could carry
out the meticulous and repetitive tasks of an
expediter for which he was paid, he has no understanding
of the value of money or of how to handle personal
finances. He could not prepare a meal, shop
for food, or keep house, and refused to attend
to personal hygiene unless prodded.
The
state did not contest T.H.’s diagnosis,
and confirmed that his functional limitations
were sufficient to warrant DDD eligibility,
resting its denial instead on a defense of its
restrictive regulatory language and its interpretation
of New Jersey’s Developmental Disability
Rights Act.
The
decision, written by Justice Virginia Long,
went on to say “we can think of no more
relevant and probative evidence than testimony
of relatives who lived with T.H and his problems
– year in and year out – over a
lifetime. To rule otherwise would be to be to
punish families that chose to care for their
disabled children in lieu of placing them in
a facility.”
“On
its face, the regulation unnecessarily restricts
the services intended to be provided by state
law,” said Prior. “From the start,
we recognized that DDD’s rules unfairly
impacted families like T.H.’s, who have
spent a lifetime caring for their loved ones
at home. The fact that they didn’t apply
for services when he was younger shouldn’t
have a bearing on a contemporary eligibility
decision and the state’s responsibilities
under the law.”
###
Attorneys
from Hinkle, Fingles & Prior are available
to speak to your group about this important
decision and other topics related to disability
law. Visit
our workshop page to view other topics.
Call
our office now at 609-896-4200 for more information
or to request a speaker.
