May 21, 2010
Craig Sears ###
State of Connecticut Commission On Human Rights And Opportunities
Southwest Region Office
350 Fairfield Avenue 6th Floor
Bridgeport, Ct. 06604
Merit Assessment Review Reconsideration Request
Case Name: Sears v. State of CT. – DSS
CHRO Case NO.: ###
EEOC Case No.: N/A
In an effort to advocate for myself and all those individuals who are protected by the established legislation which is found within the Acquired Brain Injury (ABI Medicaid Waiver) Program I am applying for “Reconsideration” of the State of Connecticut’s Commission On Human Rights And Opportunities decision to dismiss my complaint which was based on “ No Reasonable Possibility”. In doing so I will be advocating further for both acknowledgement of and retribution for those laws which have been violated that are stated within the Fair Hearing Statement for Craig Sears which was prepared by ###, Human Services Advocate 10/6/09 from the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities.( Please refer to the enclosed documentation of this Fair Hearing Statement which is being resubmitted for the second time).
In compliance with your rules and regulations I am requesting as provided in CONN.GEN.STAT. 46a-83(e) in writing within 15 calendar days “Reconsideration” under the specific grounds mentioned below (please refer to the specifics of my case: Case Name: Sears v. State of Ct.-DSS, CHRO Case No.: ###, EEOC Case No.: N/A)
1) An error or fact or law should be corrected.
Some of the oversights that I am referring to are mentioned below but are not limited to those listed. For additional oversights please refer to the initial documentation which was submitted consisting of over 500 pgs of pertinent information.
a. While the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities has established “No Reasonable” possibility under Merit Assessment Standard 4 by establishing in their minds that no allegations of discrimination could be substantiated with Quality Living Management Solutions Service Provider LLC (QLMS) the initial complaint that I submitted was intended to be directed at the Department of Social Services because it is ultimately the responsibility of the Department of Social Services to enforce the laws of the ABI Medicaid Waiver which are clearly demonstrated in the Fair Hearing Statement that was developed by the State of Connecticut Office Of Protection And Advocacy For Persons With Disabilities by ### 10/06/09. I believe your response was directed at the specific service provider (QLMS) at the time which was in my mind a clear error in fact and law which should be corrected.
b. In response to your findings please review the literature that documents the time line of the events which should reveal that I dismissed the team of caregivers that Quality Living Management Solutions Service Provider LLC was providing prior to the allegation of my misconduct.
c. And I quote, Sec. 17b-260a-1I, Individuals who are eligible for ABI services shall be given free choice of all qualified providers of each service included in his or her plan of care. When Mr. Sears exercised this right to choice, DSS refused to authorize service provision and payment to an alternate DSS/ Allied approved provider of his choice, resulting in a complete absence of services for Mr. Sears. Sec. 17b-260a-1J7 states that it is the responsibility of the Department to pay for approved ABI waiver services delivered by qualified providers through its fiduciary agent on behalf of the individual.
d. It should be known that I identified new service providers which were in place to provide services in an effort to maintain complete continuity in care as dictated by the ABI Medicaid Waiver and the Department of Social Services failed to effectively authorize payment to facilitate a smooth transition to a new provider to maintain proper care for my health and wellness.(again refer to the Fair Hearing Request 10/6/09) Please also refer to the e-mails that I am resubmitting which document and substantiate my complaint of the Department of Social Services failure to implement services in a timely manner so as to uphold the laws of the ABI Medicaid Waiver.
e. It is my belief which is based on conversations with the office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (###) that this institution was not contacted to substantiate my allegations nor were they conferred with in any way by CHRO to seek out the TRUTH of this matter; further more it was this agency that directed me how to proceed to have my Civil Rights protected and I quote, “ In addition to the legal resources I gave you, you should consider filing a discrimination complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO).” I am following this suggestion and I am resubmitting my request for “RECONSIDERATION”.
2) New Evidence has been discovered which materially affects the merits of the case and which, for good reasons, was not presented during the investigation.
a. Please refer to pg.4 of the Merit Assessment Review where it states “That there was a brief breach in the continuity of those services” This statement refers to the time period between August 29, 2009 and at least October 6, 2009 where I was without services which is stated in the Fair Hearing Statement. This substantiates that I was left without services which is in violation of the ABI Waiver (refer to Fair Hearing Statement).
b. By CHRO dismissing my case CHRO is not upholding the very laws that they have implemented to protect and serve this specific population that requires specialized care due to the nature of the resulting impairments that may occur at different times under various environmental conditions.
3) Other good cause for reconsideration has been shown.
a. In addition to the enclosed documents please consider the following information which supports my credibility as an advocate for this population.
I. I was a member of the class action law suit in the 1990’s that worked to implement the Acquired Brain Injury Medicaid Waiver in the state of Connecticut ( the very program that has been put in place to protect my needs which is now failing to be instituted by the Department of Social Services)
II. I have been an integral public figure in the quest for services for this population over the years which links my life experience and face with this issue (posters, television shows, radio, public appearances, work books, state banners, etc.).
III. I have served as a board member on the Connecticut TBI Advisory Board Committee for the past five years.
IV. I now serve on the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation International Family Advisory Board Committee for the Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury (PABI Plan) for the past year and a half.
V. ETC. http://www.google.com/profiles/craig.sears.tbi
In closing the retribution that I am seeking is listed in my initial complaint.
A copy was mailed to Attorney ### #. ###
State of CT –DSS
25 Sigourney Street
Hartford CT 06106-5033
Cert # ###
see my blog: State of Connecticut Department of Social Services discriminating against and taking advantage of Brain Injury Survivors on the ABI Medicaid waiver