Earlier this Summer, the Court of Appeals overturned the Appellate Division Third Department’s (the “Third Department”) unanimous decision in The Matter of Anonymous v. Molik, where it ruled that the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (“Justice Center”) exceeded its authority by substantiating a report against a facility or provider agency based upon a “concurrent finding” of neglect.[i] With its decision, the Court of Appeals has not only clarified the Justice Center’s scope of authority, but also reopened the floodgates to a large number of investigations and appeals that have been existing in a state of limbo since the Third Department’s June 2, 2016 decision.[ii]
Pursuant to Executive Law §§ 551-562 and Social Services Law §§ 488-497, the Justice Center was established in 2013 to protect “vulnerable persons who receive care from New York State’s human services agencies.”[iii] It was created to protect all vulnerable persons, or those “who, due to physical or cognitive disabilities, or the need for services or placement, [are] receiving services from a facility or provider agency.”[iv]
All reportable incidents, including any allegation of neglect,[v] must be reported by a facility to the Statewide Vulnerable Persons’ Central Register (“VPCR”)[vi], whereby the Justice Center is mandated to investigate the allegation(s) and submit its findings to the VPCR.[vii] The Justice Center’s findings are “based on a preponderance of the evidence and indicate whether the alleged abuse or neglect is substantiated in that it is determined the incident occurred and the subject of the report, facility or provider agency are responsible; or the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated because the event did not occur, or the subject of the report was found not responsible.”[viii] Additionally, the Justice Center may make “a concurrent finding . . . that a systemic problem [at the provider agency or facility] caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident.”[ix]
In Molik, a male resident engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a female resident after two staff members momentarily left a common room at the Petitioner’s facility.[x] This assault was the third incident in a six month period, with the previous two assaults being known to the Petitioner.[xi] The Justice Center investigated the incident, but did not substantiate a report of neglect against the two individuals because “there were no policies or requirements in place prohibiting staff from leaving the room unattended while residents were gathered there.”[xii] However, since the male resident had previously engaged in similar conduct, the Justice Center substantiated a concurrent finding of neglect against the Petitioner, the operator of the residential facility, “for failing to implement clear staff supervision protocols and for failing to modify [the male resident’s] care plan to increase his level of supervision after the first two attacks.”[xiii]
The Petitioner requested that the Justice Center amend its finding to unsubstantiated, which was denied, leading to the Petitioner’s Article 78 action where it received unanimous support from the Third Department.[xiv] In its decision, the Third Department overturned the Justice Center’s concurrent finding, stating that it did not have to “defer to the Justice Center’s interpretation of the statutory provisions in question . . . [but rather defer to the] pure statutory interpretation dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent.”[xv] “[T]he only circumstance under which the Justice Center could substantiate a report of neglect against a facility or provider agency is where an incident of neglect has occurred but the subject cannot be identified — a situation that is plainly not present here.”[xvi] The Third Department continued by saying, while the Justice Center does, in fact, have the authority to make a concurrent finding, “the only concurrent finding that may be made is that a systemic problem caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident.”[xvii] Accordingly, since the controlling statute did not provide the Justice Center with the clear ability to categorize a concurrent finding it necessarily followed that such a finding could not constitute neglect on the part of a provider agency.[xviii]
The Court of Appeals, however, did not share in the Third Department’s view, stating that courts may look beyond the literal text of a statute when “the plain intent and purpose of the statute would otherwise be defeated.”[xix] Consequently, the Court viewed the Petitioner’s, and the Third Department’s, narrow interpretation of the law as “leav[ing] the Justice Center powerless to address many systemic issues, defeating the purpose of the Act and preventing the Justice Center from protecting vulnerable persons where it is most critical to do so.”[xx] The Court, in light of the particular underlying events in Molik, ruled that to uphold this construction “would perversely allow this dangerous cycle to continue: employee conduct could not be substantiated because it does not violate facility policies, but facility policies would remain ineffective because the Justice Center lacks authority to implement change.”[xxi]
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Rivera stated that she agreed with the majority that “[i]t would lead to absurd results if [N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 493(3)(a) were interpreted] to permit a facility or provider agency to be found responsible in those situations where an incident occurs and no subject can be identified, but not where an identified subject is found not responsible for a confirmed incident of abuse or neglect.”[xxii] However, Judge Rivera points out that a ‘concurrent’ finding should be viewed as an ‘adjunct’, requiring that an initial finding of neglect must be made before a provider agency could be found to have concurrently committed neglect, even if the initial subject is ultimately found not responsible.[xxiii] In Molik, as reasoned by Judge Rivera, the initial step of establishing a finding of abuse or neglect was never reached because the allegation of neglect against the two identified subjects was declared unsubstantiated; therefore, a ‘concurrent’ finding could not be made.[xxiv]
In a post-Molik world, it is imperative that all provider agencies subject to Justice Center oversight review their internal policies, procedures, and processes, understanding that they too are now clearly within the Justice Center’s reach. Provider agencies should evaluate previous incidents that occurred within the facility to determine whether the necessary corrective actions have been taken or if further steps are needed. Furthermore, staff training curriculum should be reevaluated to determine whether opportunities for improvement exist.
If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding the Justice Center, or would be interested in assistance reviewing, developing or revising your policies, processes, and training programs, please do not hesitate to contact Farrell Fritz’s Regulatory & Government Relations Practice Group at 518.313.1450 or [email protected]
[i] Anonymous v. Molik, 2018 WL 3147607 (N.Y. Jun. 28, 2018).
[ii] Matter of Anonymous v. Molik, 141 A.D.3d 162, (App. Div. 3 Dep’t, June 2, 2016)
[iii] 14 N.Y.C.R.R. § 700.1(a).
[iv] N.Y. Soc. Servs. Law § 488(14).
[v] 14 N.Y.C.R.R § 624.3(b)(8).
[vi] N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 492(1)(a).
[vii] Id. at (3)(c)(i); Id. at (3)(c)(viii); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 493(1).
[viii] N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 492(3)(a).
[ix] Id. at (3)(b).
[x] Molik, 2018 WL 3147607 at *1.
[xiv] Id. at *2.
[xv] Molik, 141 A.D.3d. at 166 (internal citations omitted).
[xvi] Id. at 167 (citing N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 492(3)(a)).
[xvii] Id. at 167–168 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[xix] Id. at *4.
[xx] Molik, 2018 WL 3147607 at *5.
[xxii] Id. at 8
[xxiii] Id. at 9.
[xxiv] Id. at 10.