Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Strikes Down DDD’s
Eligibility Scheme
by
S. Paul Prior,
Esq.
Hinkle,
Fingles & Prior, Attorneys at Law
2651 Main Street
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648
(609) 896-4200 or (215) 860-2100
In a case handled by this office, the New Jersey
Supreme Court unanimously struck down DDD’s
eligibility scheme for services. The rules written by
DDD have been changed.
At issue was the extent to which proving eligibility
rested with the family seeking services, and an
important difference between state law and DDD’s
internal rules regarding eligibility. The Supreme
Court sided with families, giving their experience
more credibility, and ruling that DDD overstepped its
authority to limit services.
The decision will have an impact on individuals who
are applying for DDD services after the age of 22,
especially many with Asperger's Syndrome and other
“higher functioning” disabilities, many of whom were
not diagnosed or did not receive
services when younger.
Our client, T.H., is a fifty-four year old man with
Asperger’s Syndrome who lived with his parents all his
life. After his parents died T.H.'s sister applied for
DDD services when it became clear that she could not
continue his care at home.
State law governing DDD eligibility requires the
presence of a developmental disability prior to age
twenty-two, which results in functional limitations in
at least three of six life skills areas. Until now,
DDD’s rules added an additional burden requiring that
an individual’s functional limitations be documented
before age twenty-two. That difference was the crux of
the case.
T.H.’s sister, who testified in the case, described
his lifelong rigidity, reclusive behavior, obsessive
preoccupations, and social isolation. She described
his inability to make eye contact during conversation
and his constant monologues on matters of little or no
interest to his listener. He could not prepare a meal,
shop for food, or keep house, and refused to attend to
personal hygiene unless prodded. DDD rejected the
evidence offered by T.H.’s sister, on grounds that her
testimony was anecdotal and not documentary.
The Supreme Court’s decision stuck down DDD’s rules as
too restrictive and contrary to state and federal law.
The Court went on to say “we can think of no more
relevant and probative evidence than testimony of
relatives who lived with T.H. and his problems year in
and year out over a lifetime. To rule otherwise would
be to punish families that chose to care for
their disabled children in lieu of placing them in a
facility.”
While this is a major victory for families who may not
have applied for services earlier in life, we
nevertheless strongly encourage families to apply for
services from DDD sooner rather than later. Long
waiting lists for services exist even after
eligibility is granted. It is far better to be
eligible for services from DDD and not need them than
to seek services from DDD for the first time when a
crisis occurs.
______
Hinkle,
Fingles, & Prior maintains a multi-state law practice
with offices in Lawrenceville, Marlton, and Florham
Park, New Jersey, and Yardley, and Plymouth Meeting,
Pennsylvania. They lecture and write frequently on
topics of law, aging, disability and estate planning
and are available
to speak to groups in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania at no charge.
Comments
and suggestions for future articles should be mailed
to: Hinkle, Fingles & Prior, Attorneys at Law,
2651 Main Street, Suite A, Lawrenceville, New Jersey
08648-1012.
Copyright
2007 Herbert D. Hinkle. All rights reserved.
