DDS finally agrees to allow client to stay with shared-living caregiver; but caregiver’s payment will be cut almost 50%
A year after having disenrolled Mercy Mezzanotti from her shared-living program, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) finally agreed this past spring to allow Mercy to continue to receive shared-living services from her longtime caregiver, Karen Faiola.
But before doing so, the Department’s Worcester area office reassessed Mercy as a candidate for shared-living services, and increased her assessed level of functioning. That move, according to Karen, will cut her previous income for caring for Mercy by close to 50%.
A higher level of functioning implies a lower level of needed services. However, both Karen and Mercy contend that Mercy’s needs and level of functioning have not changed. Mercy was found by DDS in 2004 to qualify to receive Home and Community Based (HCBS) as well as institutional services from DDS.
“They are continuing to punish us,” said Karen, referring to the DDS area office. Karen and Mercy claim both DDS and Venture Community Services, Karen’s former shared-living contract agency, retaliated against them after they alleged that Venture employees abused Mercy emotionally last year.
Karen Faiola and Mercy Mezzanotti
As we argue below, it also appears that the DDS reassessment of Mercy did not comply with departmental regulations. The regulations require that such an assessment be done by a qualified eligibility team and that notice of the reassessment be provided to Mercy.
Income for caring for Mercy would decline from $38,000 a year to $20,000
Karen said she was told last month by Mercy’s new shared-living contract agency that as a result of the new assessment by DDS, her previous annual income for caring for Mercy will be reduced from $34,000, which she had earned under the Venture contract, to roughly $20,000. Also, she will no longer receive a $4,000 respite allocation for providing services.
Both Karen and Mercy contend the DDS Area Office has deliberately sought to reduce Karen’s pay as part of a continuing vendetta against them for having complained last year that two employees of Venture had emotionally abused Mercy. Karen said the pay cut will it very difficult for her to continue to care for Mercy and to survive financially.
Contract termination followed by involuntary removal from home and disenrollment from program
Mercy has been living in Karen’s Sutton home for the past five years. Karen had been Mercy’s paid shared-living caregiver from 2018 until Venture terminated its contract with Karen in May 2022 without providing a stated reason for the termination. DDS pays corporate providers such as Venture to contract directly with shared-living caregivers.
Prior to the contract termination, Mercy and Karen had complained to Venture that a Venture job coach and a second Venture employee had emotionally abused Mercy.
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 her with another caregiver in Worcester 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 HCBS program. DDS argued that in leaving the stranger’s home, Mercy was refusing DDS services.
Meanwhile, both Karen and Mercy’s therapist filed complaints with the Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC) of abuse of Mercy by Venture. However, a subsequent review by DDS did not result in any findings concerning those charges, indicating that the charges were not investigated.
In July 2022, Mercy appealed her disenrollment to DDS. In February of this year, a DDS-appointed hearing officer upheld the disenrollment, but left the door open for Mercy to “work with” the DDS area office to reapply for shared-living services.
Melanie Cruz, Mercy’s service coordinator supervisor in the DDS Worcester area office, subsequently told Mercy she would refer her to a new shared-living contract agency. But Cruz then texted Mercy in March to say she would have to undergo an eligibility “reprioritization” before she could be “considered for residential services.”
By that time, Mercy had been without a shared living program for more than a year after Venture’s termination of Karen’s contract. Mercy has nevertheless continued to live with Karen, who continued to provide shared-living services to her without financial compensation.
DDS regulations appear to have been violated: No eligibility team and no notice
DDS regulations (115 CMR 6.02(3)) require that eligibility for DDS services be determined by “regional eligibility teams,” each of which must be comprised of a licensed doctoral level psychologist, a social worker with a master’s degree, and a “Department eligibility specialist.”
Karen said the eligibility reassessment of Mercy was carried out in April by Cruz, the service coordinator supervisor, who is employed by the Area Office. In an email I sent on Tuesday to DDS Commissioner Jane Ryder, I stated that having Cruz undertake the reassessment, on its face, does not appear to comply with the regulations.
In addition, the regulations (115 CMR 6.03 and 6.08) state that after completion of an eligibility determination or redetermination, the regional eligibility team must notify the individual of the determination and their right to appeal within 30 days after receiving the notice.
However, Karen said that as of today (August 4) Mercy still had not received a notice of the reassessment. On Tuesday, Mercy texted Cruz, asking for a copy of the reassessment. But Mercy has not received a response from her, Karen said.
Cruz had previously testified against Mercy
In questioning Cruz’s rationale for reassessing Mercy’s level of functioning, Karen also noted that Cruz had previously testified in favor of Mercy’s disenrollment in a November 2022 DDS hearing on Mercy’s appeal. Karen said she believes Cruz was therefore facing a conflict of interest in subsequently reassessing Mercy for shared-living services.
Reassessment reportedly states that Mercy was without services for the past year
Karen was informed that one of the reasons cited by Cruz for the increase in Mercy’s level of functioning was that Mercy was living “unsupported for the past year.” If that statement is actually contained in Cruz’s reassessment, it is untrue. Karen, in fact, continued to support Mercy over the past year. The only difference between that period and the period prior to it is that Karen was not paid over the past year for caring for Mercy.
It appears that the DDS area office has mishandled this case from the start and has carried out what appears to be a vendetta against Mercy and Karen for having reported the alleged abuse against Mercy.
At the very least, we think, a properly constituted regional eligibility team that is independent of the DDS Worcester area office should assess Mercy’s functional level for shared-living services. DDS should then approve a realistic payment schedule to Karen for providing those services.
COFAR blog 
a) Massachusetts deprived our son with IDD of his rights. They were never open to reason… always secretive. b) Sound like she has a whistle-Blower avenue c) The other reasons listed in the article point toward a need to have a third party intervene.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karen is a hero. Despite everything the DDS did to her, she remained steadfast in helping Mercy. She is the type of care provider that parents pray for. Because she came to the rescue, and cared for Mercy for free, the DDS used this against her. I wonder if there is a special way to honor Karen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s wrong with this picture? (Part 1)
I live a quality, wholesome, stable, structured life in my lovely home I built on a pond. I’m very active and interested in day outings as well as historical sites, hiking, museums, plus. I am a professional person who is well rounded and travelled extensively. I’m an experience shared living provider having a gentleman for 6+ years.
When I first met Mercy, 5 +/- years ago, I saw a broken person, one who was on the verge of tears. It was clear to me that she’d been neglected and mentally abused. Her hair was un-kept, never getting a cut or a trim for years. Her clothes I wouldn’t donate to Salvation Army they were so bad. Mercy had been in the system for about 16 +/- years and had been placed in 5 or 6 unsuccessful shared living situations throughout those years. At 45 she didn’t know how to make a bed. She didn’t know how to clean or about feminine products available, etc. Wow, I thought the system failed Mercy for sure.
Later I found out my perception was spot on; I found out her last shared living provider was downright cruel to Mercy. She went to bed hungry many times.
Mercy was so oppressed, depressed, repressed and as a reflection of that used to just hang her head down when she went to meetings at Venture and/or DDS .
Later, I heard all about the experiences Mercy had in previous shared living 5 or 6 providers she had and they were awful.
In the five years Mercy has been living here I have empowered her to stand up for herself, instilled self esteem and taught her how to articulate her feelings, interests and opinions.
Shortly after Mercy came to live with me, everyone noticed the difference, her father, family members, Venture and DDS. I was praised for what I’d done by all. The difference was night and day.
Part 2 coming later
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s wrong with this picture? (Part 2)
During Mercy’s first year living with me, she got a new wardrobe, got her hair cut, doctors were upgraded, brought her to my dentist and found her a new primary care doctor. I took her to an ear doctor because she didn’t hear well. I took her to a gastroenterologist because I suspected something was wrong. During her colonoscopy they found she had a serious infection that could cause ulcers which ultimately turn into cancer.
Mercy was always interested in history and we went to Sturbridge Village a few times, especially when they had special events. Mercy showed a keen interest in Native American history and who the Pilgrims were, we went to Plymouth Plantation, and she bought a book. We toured the replica of the Mayflower. I took her to the Deerfield Museum which has an incredible history with many Native American artifacts; she bought a book about a young girl who was swept away from her family by the Indians. When things started to open after Covid, on that first day we went to Blithewold in RI and toured the gardens in bloom for spring. We did hiking; trying to help her lose weight. We toured a historical house (The Manse) in Concord, Ma and she bought a book. We went many craft fairs, yard sales, antique car shows, etc. We dined out many times. I even got her a personal trainer to meet her at the local gym to help Mercy with losing weight.
Mercy has been on many trips with an agency that specializes in travel for people with disabilities. She’s been to NYC at Christmas time, seen the Rockets, Dollywood in Tennessee, A Dude Ranch in Update NY, Maine and White Mountains; her life was a “dream come true”. She used to say “I’m the best Mercy I can be because of you”. “You’re the best thing that happened to my life”.
Mercy got the guidance, boundaries and structure she needed and she embraced both, because she knew someone really cared about her.
Mercy is easily influenced and she needs to be around good influences because she becomes whatever those influences are and that can be detrimental to her if the influences are bad.
Part 3 (final) coming later
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s wrong with this picture? (Part 3 final)
I advocated for Mercy once I started hearing about the mental and verbal abuse Ventures employees were doing to her. That wasn’t going to happen on my watch as far as I was concerned. Venture gets a D- in my book. Laurie Reynolds from Venture was beside herself with me for pushing Venture to do something about this abusive job coach. How dare I fight for Mercy, call for accountability, she was going to get back at me and she did, by pulling Mercy out of my home that lived in for the past 4 years. This was pure retaliation and abuse of power and Mercy became a casualty. Such lack of professionalism and accountability in this business is overwhelming, and it’s ugly.
My home is the place Venture wanted to take Mercy away from where she’s had the best part of her life here. Laurie Reynolds from Venture convinced DDS that Mercy needed to be removed immediately. I was a bad influence. DDS should have contacted Mercy and I or come to our house since they’ve never visited once in the entire 4 years to find out what’s going on. Everyone lied from Venture when they convinced DDS to go ahead and remove Mercy, because I have been nothing but an exemplary provider.
The first lie came from Engle Torres of Venture saying I hadn’t brought Mercy to the doctors in 3 years, FALSE. Then Patricia Lee from DDS Worcester told Mercy’s therapist (when she called DDS about this drastic decision affecting Mercy’s mental health) that my paperwork was late, another lie and I was always asking to have for a new respite provider, this is true, after covid Mercy’s usual respite provider didn’t want to do respite anymore. Nicole Greenberg from Venture told Mercy she needed a new start and they were going to stop Mercy from having any contact with me. Then Venture whisked Mercy away to a strange house against her will, even though Mercy is her own guardian. At this house Mercy’s never been to before, a woman who could hardly speak English, from another country from a completely different culture whom she never met was waiting for her.
These people don’t care about the special needs community they serve, they abuse their power and I find their coldness and drive for total control, scary.
The abuse doesn’t come from outside it comes from within the system and the system is broken. Heads should have rolled after this, but nothing happened except we were persecuted and retaliated against.
Mercy was defunded, DDS stop paying even though I was still providing services, and they wouldn’t send the referral to a new agency. Laws on the books for protection were broken by DDS and Venture.
These people aren’t acting in anyone’s best interest; they are drunk with power and enjoy toying with people’s lives.
If I had special needs child, I’d move out of state.
DDS says the reason why such a substantial reduction in pay was offered to me now (a year later); “Lots of changes to Mercy’s behaviors, No issues at work, no need for 1:1, less supervision, Stabilization, and living unsupportive for the pass year”.
Gee, that sounds like DDS is acknowledging and complimenting me for the positive care I gave Mercy. This is the same DDS that pulled her out of my house. They can’t have it both ways.
Why did they so desperately and still do want Mercy out of my house where she’s thrived so well and even admitted it as their reason for offering much less than I was getting?
I have my theories.
LikeLike
I live in NH and am trying to help a friend advocate for an adult sibling who is being removed from a nursing home with both mental and physical disabilities. It has been in appeal, lost and I can not believe what I have read here and how the DDS administration has violated so many patient rights, admission stanards of human decency. You changed this woman’s life and should have been appreciated. I am so sad reading this to the end. I do hope that she was able to return to you. You are a special human. MA used to be known for being the better state for the disabled. Not anymore DISGRACEFUL
LikeLike