CORRESPONDENCE - 60B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

seeking help…section (c) would be reduced to a nullity and mere surplusage…Whether any of the prospective patients were engaging in the use of illegal drags is orthogonal to the question 28 of whether the ADA or \[RA\] provides protection for them.” Under this line of reasoning, patients of SEPs who are currently using illegal substances are still within the protection of the ADA through the application of the safe harbor provision. A SEP in Santa Ana, if permitted to function like those in many other municipalities across the country, would provide services that not only directly improve health outcomes to those with SUDs, but to the greater community as well. Further, in order to be authorized by the state of California, an SEP must provide services or refer to services that are general health services; e.g. HIV and hepatitis screening, hepatitis B and C vaccinations. An individual with SUD would be “otherwise entitled” to those services, and they may not be denied those services due to their current use of illegal drugs. Because the Santa Ana SEP ordinance is a ban on SEPs anywhere in the jurisdiction, the result is a denial of health services to persons with SUD—a direct violation of the safe harbor provision in the ADA and the RA. V. Avoiding Protracted and Costly Litigation In defending provisions eventually struck down as facially discriminatory, government entities have incurred substantial financial and resource burdens. For example, in RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of DuBois the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania struck down a zoning ordinance that specifically excluded SUD treatment facilities from large areas of the city, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. 29 Constitution. The Court ordered the City of DuBois to pay $132,801.64 in damages and over 30 $270,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, ordinances and other policies that are facially discriminatory against people with SUD are increasingly the subject of investigations and litigation by the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice and investigations by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OCR), resulting in a number of high-profile 31 settlements. In the event it determines noncompliance with the ADA or RA, OCR can require compliance with settlement agreements and increased reporting and monitoring, under the threat of termination of federal funds. Although these efforts have not yet related to SEPs, there have been discussions about such possibilities. To avoid the risk of protracted and expensive litigation or investigation by OCR, the city council should reject the proposed provision and instead support further expansion of harm reduction services. Further, Santa Ana need look no further than neighboring cities like Costa Mesa, which has been mired in court proceedings over and over again, attempting to defend its provisions in 28 RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of DuBois, 754 F. Supp. 2d 723, 750 (W.D. Pa. 2010). 29 RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of Dubois, No. 3:09-CV-131, 2012 WL 12859837, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2012), aff'd, 564 F. App'x 660 (3d Cir. 2014). 30 RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of Dubois, No. CIV.A. 3:09-131, 2014 WL 3892100, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2014). 31 U.S. Attorney's letter to the Essex County Sheriff's Department, The Marshall Project (Jan. 3, 2019), https://www.themarshallproject.org/documents/5674055-Essex-County-USA-Correspondence.html#document/p4/a473090; U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. Office for civil rights, Joining the Fight Against the Opioid Crisis (Oct. 2018), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opioid-newsletter-october-2018.pdf.