Community Grievance Decision Digest

GRIEVABILITY

NOTE: The decisions cited in this section of the digest have to do with whether or not a specific issue can be brought as a grievance.

DECISIONS

1. The HFS 94 grievance process has no jurisdiction over issues raised by an individual under the control of the Department of Corrections. The individual who brought the complaint was redirected to appeal through the DOC inmate complaint system. (Level III decision in Case No. 98-SGE-01 on 2/6/98.)

2. A patient’s ex-husband attempted to file a grievance on his ex-wife’s behalf about the fees charged for her mental health services. He had been ordered by the divorce court to pay that bill. He lacked standing to bring the complaint or appeal it through the grievance process without his ex-wife’s consent. Patient rights attached to her, not her ex-husband, since she was the one receiving the treatment. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-06 on 4/14/00.)

3. A patient being emergency detained complained about being shackled by the sheriff officers during transport. This is their standard practice. The grievance process has no jurisdiction over the actions of law enforcement agencies. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-04 on 4/9/01.)

4. Financial assistance for housing is not an issue covered by client rights and such decisions cannot be challenged in the grievance process in HFS 94. (Level III decision in Case No. 01-SGE-02 on 6/6/01.)

5. A client also filed a complaint with the Department of Health Services Bureau of Quality Assurance (BQA), which certifies providers and clinics. The issues raised in that context were reviewed as part of a separate process. The grievance procedure reviews complaints in the context of HFS 94 rights, and does not deal with licensing or certification issues. Thus, there is no standing to raise licensing and certification issues in the grievance process, too. (Level IV decision in Case No. 00-SGE-11 on 8/26/02, upholding the Level III decision.)

6. An ex-patient complained that an inpatient treatment facility overcharged him for some smoking materials. County funds paid for those materials, rather than the patient. The issue was thus between the county and the facility and the issue was not appropriate for the grievance process. (Level III decision in Case No. 02-SGE-05 on 3/19/03.)

7. A father wanted to audio-tape staff’s meetings where they discussed his son’s treatment. The facility refused to allow this. This is not a patient rights issue. The only relevant patient right is the right not to be filmed or taped. The facility offered to write up the outcomes of the meetings for the father. This was a reasonable resolution, but the father refused to accept it. (Level III decision in Case No. 03-SGE-03 on 7/17/03)

8. A court decision to order medications cannot be challenged in the grievance process. (Level III decision in Case No. 03-SGE-10 on 10/23/03.)

9. Sheltered workshops that have been approved by DWD [or the federal Department of Labor] to pay sub-minimum wages are, by such approval, deemed in compliance with the client wage requirements of § 51.61(1)(b), Stats. The HFS 94 grievance procedure has no jurisdiction over issues of compliance with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. (Level IV decision in Case No. 04-SGE-04 on 11/11/04)

10.  A diagnosis made by an independent, outpatient clinician was that clinician’s opinion, which cannot be challenged in the grievance process. The client has the right to get a second opinion if she disagrees with the diagnosis. (Level IV decision in Case No. 06-SGE-09 on 9/27/06)

Last Updated: October 24, 2008