-
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.)
-
A county received a complaint about denial of services. The
county treated the complaint as a reapplication for services
and thus did not follow the HFS 94 grievance process rules.
Since the complainants clearly identified it as a grievance and asked
that a Client Rights Specialist investigate it, this was a violation
of the complainants’ right of access to the grievance process.
(Level III decision in Case No. 98-SGE-03 on 11/10/98.)
-
Subsection 51.30(4)(b)5 allows access without consent
"...to qualified staff members of the department... as is
necessary to determine progress and adequacy of treatment..."
Thus the State Grievance Examiner is allowed to obtain otherwise
confidential records without the informed consent of the
complainant. (Level IV decision in Case No. 98-SGE-02 on 1/22/99.)
-
The grievance procedure under HFS 94 has no authority to
award damages. Monetary damages can be pursued and awarded only
by a court of law. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on
4/6/00.)
-
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.)
-
The rights and grievance procedure in HFS 94 do not apply to the
Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP) or the driver’s safety program
plans. [See DSL Memo Series 2000-04 on 4/25/00.] (Level IV
decision in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)
-
Even though the patient rights and grievance procedure in HFS 94 do
not apply to the Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP) or the driver’s
safety program plans, where an individual is also in a methadone
treatment program, she has patient rights and access to
the grievance process regarding that treatment. (Level IV decision
in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)
-
Where a methadone clinic discouraged a patient from bringing an
advocate with him to a team meeting, the clinic violated
his right to bring a grievance without fear of retaliation or
discrimination. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on 5/17/00.
Appeal to Level IV by the patient was dismissed since the Level III
decision was in his favor.)
-
Where a Level II grievance decision did not advise the
complainant of his right to a state-level review, his rights
were violated. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on
5/17/00. Appeal to Level IV by the patient was dismissed since the
Level III decision was in his favor.)
-
Where a methadone clinic did not ensure that all clinic employees
were aware of patient rights and the grievance process, they violated
the patients’ rights. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02
on 5/17/00. Appeal to Level IV by the patient was dismissed since the
Level III decision was in his favor.)
-
The HFS 94 grievance procedure does not include a "fair
hearing". (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on
5/24/00.)
-
Someone in a methadone treatment program can ask for a
"fair hearing" only when they have been involuntarily
terminated from the program. (Level IV decision in Case No.
99-SGE-02 on 5/24/00.)
-
A therapist’s supervisor correctly referred a client to the
facility’s Client Rights Specialist to file a complaint about the
therapist. The client felt the supervisor did not care about her
concerns. However, the referral was appropriate and did not
violate the client’s right to be treated with dignity and respect.
(Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on 6/17/00, upheld at Level
IV.)
-
A favorable grievance decision cannot be appealed by the
prevailing party. (Level IV decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on
6/17/00.)
-
The meaning and applicability of the section of HFS 94.24(3)
regarding "redress through the grievance procedure"
is to assure that no one is deprived of using the grievance procedure
to seek redress for an alleged violation of his or her rights. It does
not allow for the award of punitive monetary damages in the
grievance process. Only a court can award damages. The
individual whose rights were allegedly violated must initiate any
court action. (Level IV decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on 6/17/00.)
-
A patient at a county psychiatric hospital complained about a
seclusion incident. He raised issue about whether there was
justification for the initial use of seclusion and whether he was
released in a prompt and timely manner. There was a discrepancy
between a verbal report of one staff and the documentation form that
was completed while he was in seclusion. In the Level I grievance
decision, the Client Rights Specialist (CRS) made a suggestion
that staff more carefully document anything of concern that may
be displayed while a patient is in seclusion. The improvements in
documentation made by the hospital in response to his complaint
were noted. The patient withdrew his complaint at Level III.
(Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-13 on 8/2/00.)
-
Where the county’s Client Rights Specialist was also the case
manager of a woman bringing a complaint, a conflict of interest
arose. In that case, the CRS had the discretion to skip the
county stage of the process and forward the grievance to the State
Grievance Examiner. [Note: Another option would have been to have
another county staff member act as the alternate CRS for that case.]
(Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on 1/3/01.)
-
The Level I Client Rights Specialist has the discretion to look
beyond the original complaint to identify related client
rights issues, even if they are not articulated as such. (Level
III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on 1/3/01.)
-
Where a complainant had already initiated a civil lawsuit on
the issues raised in the grievance, the State Grievance Examiner
has the discretion to not issue a decision in the patient rights
grievance procedure. A court decision takes precedence over a
grievance decision. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on
1/3/01.)
-
The State Grievance Examiner is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the grievance procedure on behalf of all
patients protected by HFS 94 client rights. As such, the SGE
has a role in providing technical assistance to Client Rights
Specialists who issue Level I and II decisions. (Level III
decision in Case No. 99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
-
The Client Rights Specialist’s is expected to be objective and
neutral in regard to a complaint. The CRS is expected to
investigate all allegations raised in a complaint. (Level III
decision in Case No. 99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
-
When a patient raises treatment issues, it is not sufficient
for the Client Rights Specialist to simply note the response of the
patient’s attending physician. Further investigation may be
required. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
