Court: County can drop CDR Nov. 8

Patti Singer • Staff writer • Democrat and Chronicle • September 24, 2010

State Supreme Court Justice John Ark dismissed a petition by the Center for Disability Rights over its ouster by Monroe County as a provider of a home health care program. According to the decision released Thursday, the agreement between the two ends Nov. 8.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision,” county attorney William Taylor said. “We’re very hopeful that the Center for Disability Rights and its employees will help us to act in the best interest of the clients, which I hope is what all parties are looking for.”

Attorney Matthew Fusco said that CDR was disappointed that the decision did not address what it called slanderous remarks made about the agency when the county abruptly ended a relationship of more than 10 years over what it said was client neglect.

“We have a right to clear our name,” Fusco said. “Now they just want to say, oh, no harm, no foul, goodbye.” He said that CDR was considering additional legal recourse and he had two messages for clients: “You don’t have to do anything until Nov. 8. Don’t give up hope, we’re not done fighting.”

The agency was one of six in the county that administered the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, in which Medicaid-eligible clients approved by the county can hire, train and supervise their own personal care attendants.

As of Monday, 203 of the 293 initial clients had chosen a new vendor, according to the county. Fusco said that CDR still was administering services to the 90 who have not chosen and about 100 who have chosen but have yet to make the move. Taylor said that the county is encouraging the remaining 90 clients to choose a new provider and on Nov. 9 would continue to work with them and the state Department of Health to ensure continuity of care.

The relationship between the county and CDR soured two months ago. The county sent a letter dated July 21 to clients saying it was no longer contracting with the agency and setting a deadline for them to choose one of the five other vendors. The county sent a news release dated July 22 announcing the end of the contract and included a letter from Department of Human Services Commissioner Kelly A. Reed to County Executive Maggie Brooks that detailed some allegations against CDR, including that it was the target of investigations by state agencies. The county sent a letter to CDR on July 22 to inform it of the decision.

CDR maintained from the outset that the allegations of neglect were unfounded, and as the weeks went by, it released correspondence from state and county offices that the agency said showed it followed rules. CDR initiated legal action to be reinstated as a vendor and to get the county to support its claims. Drama arose in late August, when it was found that the agency’s chief operating officer, Chris Hilderbrant, acting on suspicions that the county had ended the contract in retaliation for CDR’s political activism, hired a private researcher to investigate.

In a previous court appearance, the county and CDR argued over the existence of a contract. Ark wrote in his decision Wednesday that the county had tried to say that its July 22 letter initiated the termination period. “Inasmuch as the County had not acknowledged the contract as of July 22, 2010, the July 22 letter could not have been intended as a 60-day termination notice.”

For the purpose of resolving the case, Taylor said that on Sept. 8, the county acknowledged the existence of the contract so that it could end the relationship as quickly as possible. With a contract in place, the county could invoke its 60-day termination clause without having to give cause.

“It’s not in anyone’s best interest to litigate the issue when we can do what we all should be doing, which is focusing on the clients,” he said.

PSINGER@DemocratandChronicle.com