COFAR blog

Almost a year ago, Mercy Mezzanotti, a client of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), lost her shared living services after claiming she had been emotionally abused by two employees of Venture Community Services, a DDS-funded provider agency.

Today, Mercy says, DDS is continuing to block her attempts to get her shared living services back.

On Monday (April 10), COFAR emailed DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder, contending that Mercy has been illegally denied shared living services by the DDS Worcester area office since May 2022, and urging Ryder to intervene in the matter.

Mercy is currently living in the Sutton home of Karen Faiola, who is voluntarily providing shared living services to her. Karen had been Mercy’s paid shared living caregiver for four years until Venture terminated its contract with Karen on May 23 without providing a stated reason for the termination. DDS pays corporate providers such as Venture to contract directly with shared living caregivers.

Prior to that May date, both Mercy and Karen had complained that a job coach working for Venture and a second employee had emotionally abused Mercy. As a result of the contract termination, Karen hasn’t been paid since May for continuing to care for Mercy.

Moreover, on the same day that Venture terminated its contract with Karen, a Venture employee removed Mercy against her will from Karen’s home and placed Mercy with another caregiver whom Mercy had never met. When Karen, at Mercy’s insistence, brought Mercy back to her home two days later, DDS moved to disenroll Mercy from its federally reimbursed Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) program. DDS argued that in leaving the stranger’s home, Mercy was refusing DDS services.

Door was left open to reapply

In February, a DDS-appointed hearing officer sided with the Department and upheld Mercy’s disenrollment, but left the door open for Mercy to “work with” the DDS area office to reapply for shared living services. That month, Mercy complied with the hearing officer’s decision by asking for a referral to a new provider payment agency, the Kennedy Donovan Center. Mercy’s hope was that Kennedy Donovan would then agree to her longstanding request that Karen remain as her caregiver.

The DDS area office first appeared to agree to Mercy’s request for a referral to the Kennedy Donovan Center. But then the area office failed without explanation to send the referral. Mercy and Karen said Kennedy Donovan informed them it could not process Mercy’s application for services without a referral from the DDS office.

Mercy’s service coordinator supervisor in the area office then texted Mercy last month to say she would have to undergo an eligibility “reprioritization” before she could be “considered for residential services.” The supervisor declined both to answer Mercy’s question why she was not sending the referral as she had earlier promised to do, and to explain the purpose of the reprioritization.

In our email to Commissioner Ryder on Monday, we stated that “Mercy has been treated with callous cruelty by the DDS Worcester area office, which has acted time and again, without explanation, to thwart her wishes regarding her living arrangements, care and services.”

We noted that the area office first refused to properly investigate Mercy’s allegations that she had previously been emotionally abused by Venture employees and was subsequently emotionally injured by her involuntary removal from Karen’s home.

“Bad-faith argument”

We stated to the commissioner that the area office then argued that because Karen no longer had a contract to provide shared living services to Mercy, Karen was no longer a qualified shared living caregiver.

As a result, according to the area office, Mercy was “refusing DDS services” in continuing to stay with Karen.  This was, in our view, “a bad-faith argument that deliberately ignored Mercy’s express wish and desire to continue to live and receive services from Karen.”

As we stated to Ryder, Mercy has tried to comply with the hearing officer’s decision that she should nevertheless work with the DDS area office to find a new Qualified Shared Living Provider agency. Yet, as noted, the area office has continued to refuse to cooperate with Mercy in this regard.

Services needed now

Mercy needs shared living services. If Karen were to stop caring for her without compensation, we are concerned Mercy could well become homeless. Mercy needs to remain as a “First Priority” client as per DDS regulations (115 CMR 6.07).

We maintained to Ryder that Mercy is entitled under the DDS regulations to receive shared living services, and, in our view, has been improperly and illegally denied those services since May 2022. In addition, the DDS area office has acted repeatedly to thwart Mercy’s clearly stated wish and preference to have Karen remain as her shared living caregiver.

As the hearing officer in Mercy’s appeal of her disenrollment stated, Mercy “is eligible for and receives supports from DDS on the basis of her intellectual disability.” (In actuality, Mercy has not received such supports since May 2022.)

We hope that Commissioner Ryder will take action in this matter and right the longstanding wrongs that are being done to both Mercy and Karen.