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)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


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. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/22/2010Presented and ordered printed 10104398D
01/22/2010Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
02/01/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB689)
02/10/2010Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (11-Y 2-N 2-A) (see vote tally)
02/10/2010Committee substitute printed 10104991D-S1
02/10/2010Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (10-Y 3-N 2-A) (see vote tally)
02/12/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (37-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2010Read second time
02/15/2010Reading of substitute waived
02/15/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104991D-S1
02/15/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB689S1
02/16/2010Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2010Reading of amendment waived
02/16/2010Amendment by Senator Blevins agreed to
02/16/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute with amendment SB689ES1
02/16/2010Printed as engrossed 10104991D-ES1
02/16/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2010Passed Senate (31-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2010Placed on Calendar
02/18/2010Read first time
02/18/2010Referred to Committee on General Laws
02/18/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB689ES1)
02/23/2010Assigned GL sub: #4 Professions/Occupations and Administrative Process
02/23/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting (8-Y 0-N)
03/02/2010Reported from General Laws (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2010Read second time
03/04/2010Read third time
03/04/2010Passed House BLOCK VOTE (100-Y 0-N)
03/04/2010VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2010Signed by President
03/11/2010Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB689ER)
03/11/2010Signed by Speaker
03/12/2010Signed by President
03/18/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB689ER)
04/12/2010G Approved by Governor-Chapter 692 (effective 7/1/10)
04/12/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0692)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 7 minutes.


Rev. L. William Yolton writes:

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.

Jack Ford writes:

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.