COFAR blog

Last April 19, Michael Person arrived at his daughter, Maria’s, group home in Peabody and found her unresponsive and breathing shallowly.

A member of the group home staff was at Maria’s bedside, unaware that there was a problem, and was feeding her calcium through her g-tube. The group home is run by the May Institute, a corporate provider to the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).

Maria, who is 22, has a genetic abnormality that resulted in an intellectual disability and complex medical issues, including seizures and a susceptibility to aspiration pneumonia.

Michael, who knew immediately that Maria’s life was in danger, said he lifted her up, took her out of the residence and drove her to his own home where he keeps a tank of oxygen for her. After reaching his home within six minutes, he administered the oxygen. He then called 911.

Maria was stabilized by the local ambulance company and rushed to Winchester Hospital, and was then transported to Boston Children’s Hospital by the latter hospital’s critical care transport team. She was placed on life support in the Boston Children’s Hospital Intensive Care Unit for 14 days, and remained in the hospital for a total of 27 days.

Although Maria was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia and needed intubation, she survived and is now living in a state-operated group home run by DDS.

The Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC), which investigated the incident, found no substantiated abuse or omission of care in the case. The DPPC report had labeled two of the group home staff members as “alleged abusers” or “Alab1” and “Alab2.”

The DPPC report stated that the medical team at Boston Children’s Hospital was not able to say specifically what caused the aspiration pneumonia, or if any delay in treatment had caused a worsening of Maria’s condition.

“Without evidence of a specific cause of the condition, no connection can be made to (the alleged abusers) and any reported act or omission on their part,” the report concluded. The report also concluded that there was no act or omission on Michael’s part in the delay in Maria’s care.

Recommendations were included in the report, with no further specifics, for “retraining all staff members on choking prevention” and individual meal plans, and ensuring that documentation regarding specific care-giving needs are “clear and in place” before an individual moves into a residence.

Michael believes the DPPC report was deficient, and that the group home staff were at fault in failing to recognize Maria’s obvious symptoms of respiratory distress. Had he not happened to arrive at the group home at the time he did, Maria would surely not have survived for more than another half hour, he maintains.

Michael also believes that Maria contracted aspiration pneumonia because her food was prepared incorrectly by the group home staff on April 18, the day before he found her unresponsive. She can only eat a specially prepared pureed diet of “honey thickness.”

The day before Maria was found unresponsive by Michael, she vomited in her day program after eating a lunch prepared by the group home staff. The DPPC report acknowledged that the next morning, she had a cough and congestion, and that the staff later observed spit bubbles in her mouth; but the staff did not seek advice from medical professionals about those symptoms.

After reviewing the DPPC report, we share a number of Michael’s concerns about it. Overall, the report does appear to downplay key evidence that might have the potential to substantiate abuse in this case.

For instance, while the report stated that the medical team at Boston Children’s Hospital was unable to say what had caused the aspiration pneumonia, it is not clear that the investigator interviewed members of the team directly. The report stated that the investigator spoke to a hospital official whose identity was redacted and who had previously spoken to Maria’s medical team.

It is also hard to believe the reported assertion that delaying medical care would not necessarily worsen aspiration pneumonia.

There are also a number of turns of phrase in the report, as discussed below, that raise questions whether the investigator held a bias against Michael.

DPPC defines “abuse” as “an act or omission that results in serious physical or emotional injury.” “Omission” is defined as “a caregiver’s failure, whether intentional or not, to take action to protect a person with a disability…to the degree it causes a serious injury.”

It seems clear in this case that the staff in Maria’s group home failed to take action to protect her despite the fact that she was exhibiting potential signs throughout the day of respiratory distress, and that she experienced a serious physical injury as a result.

Even if it wasn’t clear early in the day that her coughing, congestion, and spit bubbles were signs of a potentially serious illness, the staff didn’t seek medical advice about those symptoms. By 3 p.m., when Michael arrived, a staff member was then not attentive enough to notice Maria was unresponsive and potentially in a state of medical distress even as she was feeding her though a g-tube.

On Monday (March 9), I sent an email to Andrew Levrault, DPPC’s assistant general counsel, inviting comment on the case and the commission’s investigation.

Also on Monday, I emailed Lauren Solotar, president and CEO of the May Institute, asking for comment on the case and any measures the provider has taken to make sure this kind of incident doesn’t happen again. Thus far, I haven’t gotten a response from either Levrault or Solotar.

The following are some of our specific concerns about the DPPC’s report in this case:

The DPPC report appears to have attempted without evidence to discount Michael’s assertion that Maria was in a crisis state when he found her

The DPPC report appears in several instances to have attempted to discount Michael’s assertion that he believed Maria was in a state of crisis when he first saw her in the group home on April 19. The implication of the report in those instances appears to be that because Michael did not really believe Maria was in crisis, the staff cannot be blamed for failing to recognize she was in crisis either.

Yet the evidence clearly shows that Maria was unresponsive and possibly not breathing, and Michael was acting on that basis. Michael insists that he knew from the moment he saw Maria that she was in distress.

That there was a crisis situation is evident in the reports from the Wakefield Fire Department and Acton Ambulance, which arrived at Michael’s house at about 3:30 p.m. Those reports described Maria as “unconscious,” “unresponsive,” and being in a “coma.” Maria was diagnosed in Winchester Hospital Emergency Room as being in respiratory distress and having pneumonia.

But in one instance, the DPPC report included a statement from one of the alleged abusers that after Michael arrived at the group home, he “chit-chatted” with her, implying that he didn’t show a sense of urgency at the time.  The report added that “Alab1 reports (Michael) conversationally told her he’d likely take (Maria) to the hospital over the weekend.” (My emphasis.)

Michael insists that he never chit-chatted or spoke conversationally about taking Maria to the hospital. He told COFAR that upon arriving at the group home, he walked into his daughter’s room and immediately knew something was wrong. “I saw she was passed out, gray and clammy,” he said, adding that when he picked Maria up, “her head just flopped over. There was no chit-chat,” he said.

The report further quoted “Alab1” as saying Michael told her “it looks like a nebulizer weekend,”  and that he “was going to go home, pack a bag and take her to Boston Children’s Hospital.”

Michael similarly denies he held any such conversation with the staff member. The DPPC report, however, didn’t note Michael’s denials. Michael contends the investigator never asked him to respond to claims made about his statements by the alleged abusers.

In another instance, the report included the following statement regarding Michael’s interview with the investigator: “(Michael) reported that (Maria) was in extreme medical crisis, yet he drove her to his home for oxygen, then called 911 for transport.” (My emphasis.)

The word “yet” implies that there is a contradiction between what Michael reported and what actually happened. But the evidence does not show any contradiction. Michael said he drove her to his home because he wanted to get her oxygen as quickly as possible.

That use of the word “yet” was not a fluke or simple carelessness in language because the report used similar language to make virtually the same point in other instances.

In one of those cases, the DPPC report did not even state that Michael’s purpose in driving Maria to his home was to get oxygen for her. According to the report, a DDS official stated that:

(Michael) told him (the DDS official) he thought it was a ‘medical emergency’ when (Michael) arrived to pick up (Maria); however (Michael) did not call 911 until after (Michael) drove (Maria) home, which according to (Michael) took six minutes. (My emphasis.)

In yet another instance, the DPPC report stated that Michael reported that Maria was “gray in color, lifeless, and had weak limbs.” But the the report followed that with the statement, “However,  Alab1 states when (Michael) arrived to pick up (Maria), (he) …provided Alab1 with tips regarding Maria’s glasses, baseline, and AFOs (ankle-foot orthosis braces).” (My emphasis.)

Once again, Michael denied that he held such a conversation with the staff member.

Michael told COFAR that he “panicked” when he saw Maria and rushed out of the house, carrying her to his van. He said that while his house is 14 minutes away from the group home, he held his hand on the horn the entire way to his house and ran every red light. He got to his house in six minutes, ran inside and got the oxygen and administered it to Maria.

The apparent implication of the DPPC report that Michael didn’t perceive Maria to be in distress because he “chit-chatted” with one of the alleged abusers, provided her with tips about Maria’s care, and then wasn’t concerned enough about the situation to immediately call 911 is at odds with what Michael says happened and what the evidence indicates happened.

At another point, the report did acknowledge that another staff member, who was apparently not involved in Maria’s care, stated that they knew something was wrong because “(Michael) was going too fast in taking (Maria) to his van.”

The DPPC report accepted what may be second-hand claim that a delay in getting medical care would not necessarily have worsened Maria’s condition.

The DPPC report stated that the investigator interviewed a Boston Children’s Hospital official who had spoken to Maria’s medical team at the hospital, and that the team members were “unable to say what was the cause of Maria’s pneumonia or if the delay in obtaining medical care may have worsened her condition.” The identity of the hospital official who was interviewed by the investigator was redacted in the report.

The language of the report implies that the DPPC investigator did not directly or personally interview Maria’s medical team, but rather relied on a second-hand description of what the team members believed to be the case. It that was the case, it would be a glaring shortcoming in the report.

The DPPC report’s main argument for its finding that there was no abuse in the case was that Maria’s medical team was not able to say specifically what caused the aspiration pneumonia, or if any delay in treatment had caused a worsening of Maria’s condition.

It’s hard, in particular, to imagine a case involving aspiration pneumonia in which a delay in obtaining medical care would not worsen an individual’s condition. Maria clearly needed immediate medical attention when Michael found her unresponsive in her group home.

In our view, the apparent failure to directly question the medical team about those reported claims raises significant questions about the veracity of the report’s conclusions.

The DPPC report appeared to downplay the staff’s responsibility for either spotting signs of aspiration or seeking medical advice

As noted, the DPPC report stated that on April 18, after eating lunch at her day program, Maria vomited.

The DPPC report stated that while two individuals, whose identities were redacted, assessed Maria on April 18, “neither… thought she needed medical attention.” And while an individual, whose identity was also redacted, did consult Michael after Maria vomited that day, that individual also “did not follow up with…any other medical professional.”

According to the DPPC report, a May Institute employee, whose identity was redacted, stated there were no indications Maria was in distress at that time or that she needed to be hospitalized. However, the employee instructed the group home staff to monitor Maria for worsening symptoms after she had vomited, including checking for respiratory distress.

The next morning, April 19, the group home staff decided to keep Maria home from her day program, and noted that she seemed lethargic and was congested and sneezing, and had a runny nose.  The DPPC report stated that the group home staff contacted Michael regarding those symptoms, and Michael responded that Maria appeared to be sick and they “should let (her) rest.”

At 12:20 p.m. on April 19, the report stated, one of the staff members noticed spit bubbles in Maria’s mouth. The report stated that at that point, “Nursing advised staff to follow up with (Michael), which staff did. However, (an individual whose identity was redacted) was not notified…and there was no followup with any other medical professional,” the report stated.

As the DPPC report had stated, the staff was on notice that they should be checking for respiratory distress, and Maria was known to be at risk of aspiration pneumonia. Yet when Maria began to display symptoms that were consistent with that, the staff  repeatedly consulted Michael rather than medical professionals.

The DPPC report, in fact, included, as an “additional finding of risk,” that:

During (Maria’s) short time in the (May Institute) residence, the agency staff sought guidance from (Michael) rather than feeding specialists or outside medical professionals with regard to (Maria’s) feeding protocols and medical diagnoses.

It appears that the DPPC was both crediting the staff for consulting with Michael regarding Maria’s symptoms and criticizing the staff for doing so. Michael was not at the residence at the time to observe Maria until he arrived in the afternoon when she was already unresponsive. He is also not a medical professional.

The report downplayed the possibility that Maria may have aspirated on wrongly prepared food

The DPPC report included a statement from a Boston Children’s Hospital employee, whose identity was redacted, that Maria could aspirate if food was prepared too thick. The report then stated that the hospital employee added that there were “multiple other ways she could have aspirated.”  None of those other ways in which she could have aspirated were listed.

Michael said he believes the cause of Maria’s aspiration pneumonia was likely improperly prepared food by the group home, which Maria ate for lunch the day before she became unresponsive.

The DPPC investigator interviewed a day program staff who said there were times when Maria’s food “wasn’t good” when she arrived there and they would reprocess it. The report also interviewed one individual, whose identity was redacted, who said there was a clinical note that Maria aspirates on all liquids unless it is prepared to a honey consistency.  Another individual, whose identity was also redacted, said Maria was at risk of aspirating on “all oral intake” and needs smooth purees.

The report further stated that Michael reported that there were lumps in Maria’s food as well as that her food was too thin and runny on April 12, and a photo confirms that.

However, the report concluded, as noted, that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to identify the food prepared on April 18 as the cause of Maria’s aspiration pneumonia.

It appears that the DPPC investigator did not interview the alleged abuser, who had prepared Maria’s food on April 18, about issues involving the food preparation until July 26, more than three months after the aspiration incident.  At the time of that interview, the alleged abuser said she couldn’t recall what food Maria had been given, according to the report.

The DPPC report added that Alab1 stated that although Michael had been critical of the texture of the food prepared on April 12, it was the same texture as the food Alab1 had prepared on April 10 and had fed to Maria that day and the next.

The report did not explain how Alab1 was able to remember the texture and consistency of the food she prepared on April 10, but could not remember what food she prepared on April 18. That latter date was the day Maria vomited after eating lunch.

Perkins School had emphasized need for food to be pureed

Maria had actually moved into the May Institute residence on April 10, only nine days before the incident occurred in which Michael had found her unresponsive. She had previously lived at the Perkins School for 19 years.

Michael said the Perkins School staff knew how to prepare Maria’s food to the proper consistency to prevent her from choking on it. The May Institute staff, however, often made her food either too lumpy or else too runny, Michael said. Either way, it could cause Maria to choke.

A “transition portfolio” prepared by the Parkins School for Maria mentions in at least two places the need for Maria’s diet to be “puree (no lumps).”

Michael was only fully interviewed once by the DPPC investigator

Michael contends that the DPPC investigator fully interviewed him only once, on April 23, and never re-interviewed him to respond to statements made by the alleged abusers concerning his statements or sense of urgency at the group home.

In an appeal of the findings of the DPPC report, which Michael filed on November 20, he stated that he had “highly relevant first-hand knowledge of events in question, which were not gathered by the investigator.”

In a January 7 letter denying Michael’s appeal of the findings in the DPPC report, Levrault, DPPC’s assistant general counsel, stated that the investigator “had phone and email contacts with (Michael) on five occasions subsequent to (the April 23 interview). Thus (Michael) had ample opportunities to provide information to the investigator concerning the allegations.”

However, Michael contends that with one exception, he had himself initiated the subsequent calls and email contacts to ask only about the status of the investigation. (He said the investigation took eight months, yet he had initially been told it would take only one month.)

That exception was on July 19, Michael said, when the investigator called him to ask if he had any documents concerning how Maria’s food should be prepared. He provided several documents to the investigator indicating that her food had to be pureed, lump free. Other than that, he said, the investigator never asked about issues in the case.

In particular, Michael said, the investigator never followed up with him to discuss statements made by the alleged abusers about him.

Levrault’s appeal denial letter did not actually say that Michael was further interviewed during the subsequent phone calls and email contacts, but only that he had “multiple opportunities to provide information to the investigator concerning the allegations.”  In fact, Michael did provide additional information, but he claims it wasn’t considered in the report.

The case appears to present evidence of omission of care

In his denial of Michael’s appeal, Levrault noted DPPC’s definition of “abuse” as “an act or omission that results in serious physical or emotional injury.”

As I noted above, that seems to be an accurate description of what happened in this case. The staff took no action to protect Maria even though she was in a state of physical distress. The minute Michael walked into the room he recognized the signs of that distress. That the staff person was right there attempting to feed Maria, indicates, at best, a lack of basic training in their job.

Moreover, that staff person and potentially other staff in the residence appear to be at fault in failing to seek medical attention earlier in the day and potentially the day before when Maria vomited after eating lunch.

We have frequently called for more resources for DPPC because the commission is the only independent state agency that is authorized to investigate abuse of disabled adults in Massachusetts. But cases like Maria’s call into question whether DPPC, like DDS, gives deference to providers in its investigations and discounts evidence provided by family members and guardians.

All too often, we hear complaints from those family members that abuse investigations done by DDS and DPPC did not fully consider the evidence and wrongfully came to the conclusion that no abuse had occurred.

This case certainly appears to provide evidence to support that claim that the state’s processes and procedures for investigating abuse of the developmentally disabled do not always operate fairly or impartially, and that reforms of the system are needed.