Judge Rejects Challenge to Mental Cuts

In a long-awaited decision, a Superior Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to $3.2 million in cuts to mental health services imposed by the county last year.

Judge Robert E. May, in an order signed late Wednesday, said he had not found “good cause” to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the cuts as requested by the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, which filed a class-action suit on behalf of recipients of county-funded mental health care.

Rosemary Bishop, an attorney who handled the case for Legal Aid, said the organization will appeal May’s decision.

“We’re very disappointed,” Bishop said. “I think my clients and other people dependent on the county are going to feel like they’ve been told they have no right either to receive services or be treated with dignity and respect by the system.”

May’s Ruling Applauded

Deputy County Counsel Paul Bruce applauded May’s ruling, saying it “confirms the county’s position with regard to its obligation to provide mental health services.”

Bruce said May’s decision was “not surprising” because it comes on the heels of an appellate court decision in Los Angeles rejecting a lawsuit with a similar set of facts.

“I’m sure the judge considered that decision in making his ruling,” Bruce said.

Legal Aid attorneys filed the lawsuit in August, alleging that the cuts in mental health services--imposed Oct. 1--represented a breach of the county’s duty under a section of the state Welfare and Institutions Code to “relieve and support” indigent residents.

Method Challenged

The society also challenged the method in which the cuts were made, arguing that the Board of Supervisors should have held noticed hearings to alert patients that their services were being reduced.

In legal briefs and oral arguments before May, Bruce responded that the county is only obligated to match a certain portion of state funds provided for mental health care. Bruce argued that the county had not only met its matching fund obligation but exceeded it by about $7 million.

In his four-page order, May essentially echoed arguments made by the county, noting that the Legislature has “made it clear that the state assumes responsibility for services to the mentally ill” and that the county bears only a limited financial burden.

Cuts Have Caused Disruptions

As for the society’s argument that a public hearing should have been held before the cuts were made, May held that such an action is not legally mandated for proposed reductions in mental health services.

Evelyn Garrett, one of four named plaintiffs in the Legal Aid lawsuit, said in an interview Thursday that the cuts have caused major disruptions for patients reliant on the county, which serves as a last resort for those who cannot afford private mental health care.

For example, Garrett characterized her newly organized therapy group as a “fiasco,” noting that it is run by students and not licensed psychologists, and she may no longer see her therapist of five years, whom she sometimes consulted as often as three times a week.

“We really feel like we’re getting messed up and that no one cares,” Garrett said. “I know the county has a problem with money, but I believe saving a person’s life is much more important than saving a park.”