ST. LOUIS - The Missouri Supreme Court today found that a Missouri statute that prevents persons who have been appointed guardians because of mental disabilities from receiving in-home care services violates federal anti-discrimination statutes. The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri represented Andrea Bechtel, a Valley Park woman who requires assistance with her acitivities of daily living because of her physical disabilities. The state had provided her personal care services in her home, but she was kicked out of the program in 2005 after the legislature amended the statute to exclude persons who have a guardian.
“In its effort to save money, the state discriminated against some of Missouri’s most vulnerable residents,” said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “We are grateful the Missouri Supreme Court has ordered the state to restore the benefits Ms. Bechtel needs to remain in the community and out of an institution.”
The statute in question was enacted in 2005 as part of an overhaul of the state’s Medicaid program. It categorically excluded from coverage in the state’s personal care assistant program any person who had been appointed a guardian. Bechtel challenged the removal of her benefits before an administrative hearing and in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County without success before appealing to the state’s high court.
“Andrea pleaded and proved that section 208.900.1 violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by excluding her from participation in the PCA program on the basis of her mental disability,” Judge Richard B. Teitelman wrote for a unanimous court.
The decision appears to be the first time the Missouri high court has determined that a state statute violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also held that the state violated the Rehabilitation Act, another federal law designed to protect persons with disabilities.
Andrea Bechtel was represented by Anthony E. Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, and Nancy Emmel of the Clayton law firm Sindel & Emmel.
The court’s decision is available for viewing at: {CCM:BASE_URL}/downloads/OpinionBecthel.pdf