COFAR blog

Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Commissioner Jane Ryder last week upheld the Department’s move last summer to disenroll Mercy Mezzanotti, a DDS client, from shared living services because Mercy has refused to move out of the home of her longtime caregiver, Karen Faiola.

However, in accepting a hearing officer’s 10-page decision in the matter, Ryder appeared to leave the door open for Mercy and Karen to reapply directly to a “qualified provider” agency in order to continue their shared living relationship.

DDS does not directly employ shared living caregivers such as Karen, but funds nonprofit “qualified providers” that do directly contract with them.

In an interview last week, Mercy said DDS officials had repeatedly told her that she would have to leave Karen’s home and find another caregiver in order to continue receiving shared living services. But Johanna Soris, the hearing officer, stated in her decision that it is the responsibility of the qualified provider agency, and not DDS, to determine whether to employ a particular caregiver and whether to accept a client into its program.

Karen Faiola and Mercy Mezzanotti

As we have reported, the previous qualified provider in the case, Venture Community Services, temporarily removed Mercy, against her will, from Karen’s Sutton home last May, and placed Mercy in the home of another person in Worcester whom Mercy had never met. That same day, May 23, Venture terminated Karen’s shared living contract without stating a reason for the termination.

Karen and Mercy maintain that Venture terminated Karen’s contract because the two of them had complained that Venture employees had emotionally abused Mercy.

After objecting to her involuntary move, Mercy was able to return, after two days, to Karen’s home. However, DDS notified Mercy in July that she was no longer eligible for enrollment in the Department’s Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Intensive Support Waiver Program, which funds shared living services.

Mercy appealed her disenrollment, and a “fair hearing” was held on her appeal on November 10. Soris was appointed as hearing officer in the case by Commissioner Ryder.

DDS argued during the hearing that Mercy became ineligible for the HCBS Waiver program when she came back to live with Karen after her involuntary removal from Karen’s home.

According to DDS’s argument, which was presented in a legal brief in the case, shared living services must be provided by a caregiver who is employed by a qualified provider. The Department maintained that because Karen was no longer under contract with Venture, she could no longer provide shared living services under the HCBS Waiver program. And because Mercy had refused to leave Karen, DDS argued that Mercy herself was no longer eligible for the program.

DDS said to have no role in hiring shared living caregivers

Karen, who has continued to care for Mercy in her home, said she contacted a new qualified provider agency, but was told by that agency that DDS would have to refer her to them in order for her to continue to provide shared living services. She said DDS has refused to provide such a referral. As a result, she has not been paid for providing services to Mercy since May.

In her decision, Soris, the hearing officer, asserted that DDS has no authority under the Waiver program to refer Karen to another qualified provider because DDS does not contract directly with caregivers. According to the decision, the shared living process requires both Mercy and Karen to apply directly to qualified providers to participate as a client and caregiver respectively.

In our view, Soris’s decision, while upholding Mercy’s disenrollment from the Waiver program, implies that both Mercy and Karen could apply to any qualified provider of their choosing and ask that they be allowed to remain together. Karen said last week that she and Mercy plan to do that.

Soris’s decision added that, “The Appellant (Mercy) is still entitled to Waiver services so long as she fills out the proper paperwork and works with a DDS service coordinator to find a Qualified Provider.” In our view, it isn’t clear, based on Soris’s other findings, why Mercy would even need to work with a DDS service coordinator in that regard. Soris appears to have concluded that DDS plays no role in the shared living application process, either with regard to the client or the caregiver.

Hearing officer notes that Mercy benefited from Karen’s care

In her decision, Soris’s acknowledged that Mercy had “thrived” under Karen’s care. And her decision provided details that appear to cooroborate Karen and Mercy’s claim that Venture terminated Karen’s contract after Karen and Mercy had both complained that Venture employees had emotionally abused Mercy.

Soris noted that prior to living with Karen, Mercy had lived in four different shared living homes “that were each unsatisfactory in different ways.”

Citing the testimony of both Mercy and of her therapist, Grishelda Hogan, Soris wrote that Mercy originally “came to Karen Faiola’s home as a shy, timid person who could not effectively advocate for herself. Over the course of the four years with Karen Faiola, (Mercy) made great strides in overcoming her shyness and gaining self-confidence,” Soris added.

Soris also noted testimony from both Mercy and her therapist that that Mercy was having “difficulties” with her job coach, who was a Venture employee, and that Karen had asked Venture management on numerous occasions to have the job coach replaced. Mercy maintained that the job coach was emotionally abusive toward her.

Soris then stated that on May 19, Venture convened a Zoom meeting in which Karen “was informed she should resign and Venture employees would be removing (Mercy from Karen’s) home on May 23.” No reason was noted in Soris’s decision for Venture’s decision to terminate Karen.

Mercy told staying with Karen was “not an option”

On May 20, Soris wrote, a behavioral counselor from Venture picked Mercy up at her work place and “instructed her to pack her belongings over the weekend because Venture was taking her to a new home for a new start.” Soris added that Mercy “didn’t know why she couldn’t continue living with Karen Faiola. (The Venture behavioral counselor) told her it was not an option. (Mercy) was crying and stunned at this information.”

Then on Monday, May 23, Soris stated, the Venture job coach picked Mercy up at her work place and dropped her off at the new shared living caregiver’s home. Mercy then spent two days there.

“During that time,” Soris stated, Mercy “phoned and texted Karen Faiola and Grishelda Hogan exhibiting great distress to the point that both women (Karen and Hogan) filed complaints with DPPC (the Disabled Persons Protection Commission) alleging that (Mercy) was experiencing great emotional distress.”

On May 25, after having spent two nights at the new shared living caregiver’s home, Mercy called Karen “and asked her to bring her home,” Soris stated. “Karen Faiola did so and described (Mercy) as a ‘happy camper’ (in returning to her home.)”

As noted, we asked DPPC last fall to undertake a full investigation of the allegations of emotional abuse by the job coach and of Mercy’s involuntary removal from Karen’s home. DPPC has not responded to our request.

DPPC apparently referred the complaints filed by Karen and Hogan to DDS. A September 30 Complaint Resolution letter written by DDS Area Director Denise Healy did not assess whether the alleged actions of the Venture employees were appropriate, or indicate that the allegations of emotional abuse had been investigated.

We are hoping for a happy outcome to this continuing ordeal for both Mercy and Karen. Mercy said the fact that Karen hasn’t been paid since last May to care for her has had a severe financial impact on both of them. “I’m having sleepless nights,” she said. “We could end up homeless.”