Protection and Advocacy, Office for; establish policy and guideline for approval of legal remedies. (SB689)
Introduced By
Sen. Harry Blevins (R-Chesapeake) with support from co-patrons Sen. John Miller (D-Newport News), Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg), Sen. Frank Ruff (R-Clarksville), Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), and Sen. William Wampler (R-Bristol)
Progress
√ |
Introduced |
√ |
Passed Committee |
√ |
Passed House |
√ |
Passed Senate |
√ |
Signed by Governor |
√ |
Became Law |
Description
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy; dispute resolution proceedings. Requires the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy to initiate a dispute resolution proceeding prior to pursuing other legal remedies. If the dispute resolution proceeding fails to provide for a reasonable resolution of the complaint or violation, the Office may pursue other legal remedies, subject to approval by the Board for Protection and Advocacy, to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. View Full Text »


Comments
There are serious flaws in this bill.
Only a committee of qualified attorneys should make the decision about what cases to litigate.
Already, VOPA uses dispute resolution proceedings where appropriate.
Surely the patrons do not expect that VOPA should negotiate when seeking a remedy to abuse and neglect?
I suspect that the federal funding for VOPA, which is virtually all its funding, would be jeopardized if such a restriction were placed on it.
I hear that opposition to implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. is driving the bill. If so, this is a strange way to accomplish it.
VOPA already uses dispute resolution, this bill is an attempt to burden and cost VOPA money and discourage or prevent litigation of even serious abuse or deaths in our psychiatric faciliites, nursing homes, "training centers", as well as prevent litigation against businesses that do not comply with the ADA, Dept. of Rehab. Services complaints by clients will be muted, this is almost a hate bill against people with disabilities, but I suspect it is in retaliation against VOPA for suing the state and getting certed to the Supreme Court.