Under the DD and PAIMI Acts, VOPA has the authority to access "all records" of individuals whom it determines it has probable cause to believe may have been abused.
As then Judge Alito wrote in the Third Circuit decision, the protection and advocacy system is not seeking to discover reports or introduce them into evidence, but to fulfill its advocacy and investigative functions under the PAIMI Act.
(39) Like Reinhard, the facts in Indiana Protection concerned an independent state agency suing state officials to enforce provisions of the PAIMI Act in federal court.
(56) The court applied the Ex parte Young doctrine to enforce Indiana's compliance with the PAIMI Act's disclosure requirements.
(64) It would be self-defeating for the Court to restrict the doctrine: as one judicial access expert recently observed, "Ex parte Young, decided over a hundred years ago, remains one of the most powerful tools to compel states to comply with federal law, not only for big business but also for disadvantaged individuals." (65) Even under the Coeur d'Alene balancing test, it is difficult to see how enforcement of the PAIMI Act would infringe on a state's sovereign dignity.
Both PADD and PAIMI contain language generally authorizing the pursuit of legal remedies.
(119) The Ninth Circuit recognized that the facts could be distinguished in some ways from Hunt but advanced arguments supporting the applicability of associational standing to P&As based on salient similarities, concluding that the Center was the "functional equivalent of a voluntary membership organization." (120) The court highlighted the fact that protected individuals had access to formal grievance procedures and that P&As are statutorily required under PAIMI to establish an advisory council composed of people who receive or have received mental health services and their family members, arguing that these facts made protected individuals substantially similar to "members" of the Commission in Hunt.
"We join our sister circuits," Sotomayor wrote, "in holding that the plain language of PAIMI that grants OPA access to 'all records ...
OPA contends that a statutorily authorized investigation is not a civil action and thus there is no conflict between PAIMI and Connecticut law."
Since the PAIMI
program advocates only on behalf of those individuals who live in or who have recently been released from institutions (Westat, 1999), this PAIR program served the remaining individuals with mental illness who had established residences in the community.
, and PAIR are the largest P&A programs.
925 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 723-8455 (voice/TDD) (617) 723-9125 (fax) ??firstname.lastname@example.org PAIMI
Center for Public Representation 22 Green St.