Albany Law School v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities
19 N.Y.3d 106
| NY | 2012Background
- Albany Law School and Disability Advocates, Inc. (P&As) sought unrestricted access to clinical records of residents at two OPWDD facilities for compliance and advocacy investigations.
- OPWDD limited access to records to those with individual authorization or where residents lacked capacity and had no legal representative, aligning with federal DD Act procedures.
- Statutory question centered on whether Mental Hygiene Law §§ 45.09(b) and 33.13(c)(4) implement the DD Act's access requirements or grant broader access.
- Appellate and trial courts diverged: Supreme Court held NY provisions adopt DD Act procedures; Appellate Division held 45.09(b) permits broader access while 33.13(c)(4) adopts DD Act; both ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Court ultimately held that NY statutes implement federal law and thus P&As must follow DD Act safeguards, with remand to address OPWDD’s process for appointing actively-involved family members as legal representatives.
- Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s modification to require compliance with federal access standards, and remitted for further development on OPWDD’s designation/review process for family members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of access under 45.09(b) and 33.13(c)(4) | Petitioners argue for unqualified access under state law equal to Commission access. | OPWDD argues access is limited to DD Act procedures (federal standards). | Access must align with DD Act procedures. |
| Pari materia construction of 45.09(b) and 33.13(c)(4) | Statutes should be read consistently to give broad access to P&As. | Statutes were enacted together but may be read to implement federal framework. | Statutes read in pari materia align with federal access scheme. |
| Whether actively-involved family members can be legal representatives | Active family members should be sufficient to authorize access under DD Act. | Only formally appointed guardians/conservators meet 45 CFR 1386.19 criteria. | Active family members can qualify as legal representatives, but requires further development of OPWDD’s designation process. |
| OPWDD’s designation/review process for legal representatives | NY regulation should already satisfy federal requirements or more. | Process may be inadequate; needs court review. | Remanded for further proceedings to assess adequacy of OPWDD’s appointment/review mechanism. |
| Effect of striking paragraphs under CPLR 3024 | Striking was improper. | Striking appropriate to remove prejudicial material. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc., 675 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012) (P&A systems and state-federal relationships under DD Act)
- Matter of Reckess v New York State Commn. on Quality of Care for Mentally Disabled, 7 NY3d 555 (2006) (state agency oversight and inspection authority)
- Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577 (1998) (legislative intent and contextual consideration in statutory interpretation)
- People v Shulman, 6 NY3d 1 (2005) (statutory interpretation principles re modifiers and related language)
- Consedine v Portville Cent. School Dist., 12 NY3d 286 (2009) (in pari materia and legislative history considerations)