Connecticut lawmakers are set to vote on a resolution that would pay $2.5 million in a settlement to patients of Whiting Forensic Hospital who claim to have had their rights violated. The settlement would resolve a suit, argued by lawyers from Disability Rights Connecticut (DRC), accusing the state’s psychiatric interment system of unfairly infringing upon patients’ rights as a result of their disability status.

The suit began when five patients-turned-plaintiffs sued the state’s Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), Whiting Forensic, and the state’s Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) in November 2022, following a March 2022 letter submitted by DRC to DMHAS, PSRB, and the state’s Attorney General’s Office, which threatened suit if the state did not work to address DRC’s concerns.

“The circumstances we describe below violate federal law and must be promptly remedied,” reads the letter. “We include several demands for action that are necessary to ensure that acquittees are afforded their right to receive services in the most integrated setting possible, to end illegal discrimination based on disability, and to bring the State into compliance with the ADA.”

The four circumstances listed by DRC’s letter are a failure by the state to provide “sufficient community-based provider capacity” so that Whiting Forensic’s most reformed patients can transfer to more appropriate care settings, a failure to “reasonably modify” policies and procedures to give patients access to integrated care settings, engagement by state mental health officials in “discriminatory methods of administration,” and the PSRB’s application of the state’s “public safety” mandate regarding confinement and release determinations in “a way which violates the ADA.”

The letter said that the state’s system for psychiatric commitment in lieu of prosecution combines “the worst aspects” of the state’s criminal justice and mental health systems, due to the state’s ability to recommit patients perpetually with little ability for patient recourse, and by subjecting patients to strict confinement, involuntary treatment, and a long and arduous process by which patients can access lower levels of institutional care.

“Despite the fact that they have been determined by a court to be not guilty/not criminally responsible as a result of their mental health condition, acquittees are treated as convicted criminals,” reads the letter. “Unlike convicted individuals, however, they are discriminated against based on their disabilities because, among other things, they do not have the benefit of a fixed-term sentence with a chance for good time credits, probation or parole.”

DRC asserted that rehabilitated patients at Whiting Forensic are frequently denied access to temporary leave, conditional releases, or full discharge, as a result of DMHAS’s inability to provide enough lower-level psychiatric support services.

“There is an egregious shortage of community supports and services for acquittees who are ready for temporary leave and conditional release,” reads the letter. “Due to lack of provider capacity, forensic community providers in many catchment areas have told inquiring acquittees that they are not accepting new clients and that the waiting list may be months or even more than a year.”

The suit’s initial complaint said the state “failed, and continue[s] to fail,” addressing the concerns outlined in DRC’s letter. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ADA’s Title II prohibits state and local governments, as well as any public agency, department or public transit authority acting on their behalf, from discriminating against the disabled. Title II specifically requires that “people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in public entities’ programs, services, and activities in the most integrated manner appropriate.” Section 504 stipulates that federally funded programs must provide services to disabled people, “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.”

“The PSRB, DMHAS, and WFH unnecessarily segregate Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class members long after they could be reasonably accommodated in a more integrated setting with reasonable modifications of the Defendants’ programs, policies, and services,” reads the complaint. “Each of these individuals is qualified for the Defendants’ system of community-based forensic mental health services and supports. Each is able, and would prefer, to reside in a more integrated, community-based placement.”

The five plaintiffs are Anthony Dyous, a former Marine and Vietnam War veteran who has been committed since 1985, Vincenzo Lindia, who was committed in 1998, Taina Morales, who was committed in 2012, Carson Muller, who was committed in 2009, and Ling Xin Wu, who was committed in 2014. Dyous was committed for hijacking a bus and holding the passengers hostage, Lindia for arson, Morales for stabbing her mental health caretaker, Muller for killing his mother and setting fire to their home, and Xin Wu for killing a driver in a wrong-way crash during a delusional episode.

Despite the severity of the crime each plaintiff was committed for, and the severity of their mental illnesses at the time these crimes were committed, DRC argued that each plaintiff has shown significant progress in their rehabilitation. DRC accused the state’s psychiatric system of denying them access to more appropriate institutional settings despite their rehabilitation progress.

Each plaintiff has received a Level 4 privilege level, essentially deeming them the most trustworthy and rehabilitated patients in Whiting Forensic’s custody. Level 4 status allows patients to leave their unit and walk the full hospital grounds without supervision for one to two hour intervals, as well as go on supervised field trips outside hospital grounds. Privilege level determinations must be approved by treatment staff, a forensic psychiatrist and Whiting’s Forensic Review Committee.

At the time of the suit’s filing, Dyous held Level 4 privileges for two years; over that time span, DRC argued he was “clinically stable off psychiatric medication,” had not been restrained or secluded, and worked a job at the hospital “consistently and successfully,” per the complaint. Lindia has held Level 4 privileges since 2018, worked a job through Whiting’s vocational program, and had been in transitional temporary leave planning for over a year.

Morales has maintained Level 4 privileges since April 2021, Muller since before 2019, when he was granted temporary leave, and Wu since around 2016, having been granted temporary leave in 2019. Wu’s temporary leave was put on hold by the PSRB after it was found that a staff member borrowed over $500 from him, and then attempted to pay him back via gift card, a hold the suit called an “unjustified” and “out of proportion” response to “illegal and unethical actions by WFH’s staff.”

“The privilege level system is profoundly dehumanizing and robs each patient of their dignity and respect,” reads the complaint. ” More importantly, it deprives patients of their right to liberty, freedom of movement and freedom of association and, in doing so, for purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims in the lawsuit, violates the ADA and Section 504.”

DRC said that the plaintiffs’ ongoing committals provide “very few, if any, meaningful opportunities to go anywhere, to participate in community, religious, leisure, and recreational activities, or to interact with individuals without disabilities, except for hospital staff,” despite having achieved behavioral records and privilege levels consistent with patients placed in community-based care settings.

The suit criticized the PSRB, saying it places undue restrictions on acquitted patients, fails to consider whether acquittees can be served in “a more integrated community setting,” and places “unnecessary delays” in transitioning patients to conditional release. PSRB, a state board that falls under DMHAS’s umbrella, is the sole authority that decides whether criminal defendants are psychiatrically committed, transferred to lower or higher levels of psychiatric care, and whether to approve, deny, or revoke patients’ temporary leave or conditional release.

“The structure injects politics and disability discrimination into the system, which delays the transition to the most integrated setting and release of an acquittee for fear of some politically embarrassing or wrongful act upon release,” reads the complaint. “Accurate prediction of future criminal conduct of any Plaintiff or member of the Plaintiff Class is not possible and therefore, out of an excess of caution premised upon no allowance for uncertainty, the structure leads to over-institutionalization for political and practical reasons.”

The state agencies attempted to argue against the plaintiffs’ legal standing, invoking immunity via the 11th Amendment, which bars federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought against one state by citizens of another state, claiming the plaintiffs’ charges were moot, and asserting that a habeas corpus petition should be their exclusive remedy. Their defense hinged upon the plaintiffs having “elected to avail themselves of” the same defenses as convicted criminals when they took their insanity pleas.

Ultimately, both parties began settlement talks in January 2025, and the presiding District Court Judge, Sarala Nagala, granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement on Monday. On December 16, 2024, the court determined that the suit met the statutory requirements of a class action suit, and deemed any Whiting Forensic patient who “are, or will be in the future,” committed by the PSRB, assigned Level 4 privileges, and determined to be eligible for temporary leave as eligible class members.

“The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to warrant sending notice of the Settlement to Class Members,” reads the decision. “The relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delays of trial and appeal.”

The final settlement agreement will be presented before the court in May, with an exact date to be determined. If approved by the court, the settlement must then be approved by the state’s Appropriations Committee and both chambers of the legislature. If the legislature denies the settlement, the suit will likely go to trial, potentially incurring greater costs for the state if it loses.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.