Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

I am surprised that Blue Sky was approved to open in Connecticut they did not file all the appropriate paperwork per article on LoHud December 18th 2011.  

The chief operating officer of a Putnam County-based mental health facility that the state of New York is closing due to numerous violations has received preliminary approval to open a treatment facility in nearby Danbury, Conn.

David J. Palmer, COO for SLS Residential Inc., also known as Supervised LifeStyles, was approved in August for a certificate of need by the Connecticut Department of Public Health to open an out-patient psychiatric clinic and a substance-abuse facility at 2 Glen Hill Road. He will still need to obtain two licenses from the health department.
Palmer submitted the application on behalf of Blue Sky Behavioral Health LLC. Its address is listed as his New Milford, Conn., home. It’s the second attempt by Blue Sky to open a Connecticut facility after it withdrew plans last year for a treatment center near the historic Litchfield Green.
In the application, Palmer said he and Dr. Joseph Santoro, an owner of SLS, will be the principal owners of Blue Sky.
While Palmer referred often to SLS in the application process, he made no mention of its ongoing five-year battle with the New York State Office of Mental Health, which revoked the for-profit company’s operating certificates because it violated patients’ rights and ignored state regulations.
OMH ordered the 25-year-old company, which treats teens and adolescents with substance-abuse and behavioral issues, to move its patients to other facilities by year’s end.
“SLS no longer has a valid OMH operating certificate; however, OMH will allow SLS to continue operation for the sole purpose of facilitating appropriate discharge planning for current residents,” OMH spokesman Michael Seereiter said in an e-mail. “SLS is in the process of meeting individually with residents to facilitate discharges to other programs and has until December 31, 2011 to complete this process. The Mental Hygiene Legal Service is meeting separately with SLS residents to ensure that proper discharges and placements are made.”
Seereiter said SLS continues to seek legal relief, including a recent failed attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order to block revocation of its permits.

The OMH first found violations in November 2006 at two residential treatment facilities SLS ran in Southeast and fined the company $80,000 — $10,000 per violation. Inspectors returned three weeks later and found three more violations, resulting in $30,000 in fines for a total of $110,000.

Among the violations were that SLS limited residents’ contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching as they used a bathroom, punished residents unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law. The state also alleged SLS illegally restrained patients but a court later dismissed that charge.
After years of appeals, SLS lost its battle to stay open in November when the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, upheld a ruling by the OMH commissioner to revoke its permits.
Although Blue Sky’s Danbury application for a certificate of need was approved in August, the company faces a second application process, Connecticut health department spokesman William Gerrish said.
Blue Sky will need to obtain one license to run a psychiatric outpatient clinic for adults and another for a facility for the care and treatment of drug-abusing or drug-dependent people, Gerrish said. That part of the application process is run by the health department’s Facility Licensing and Inspection Section, he said.
As of Friday, Blue Sky has not submitted a completed application to FLIS. That part of the process will involve Connecticut officials looking into the history of SLS, including its battle with New York, he said.
Messages left with Palmer were not returned. A woman who answered the phone at his home Thursday and identified herself as his wife said he is no longer affiliated with SLS, then cursed at a reporter before hanging up.
Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, suggested Blue Sky may have difficulty getting Connecticut licenses.
“The facts about SLS’ operators have been established by OMH and upheld by the courts. Connecticut surely has the same concern for its residents as New York and will act accordingly,” he wrote in an e-mail

Sorry ITR is Intensive Treatment Room

I know this link has been quiet for well over a year but I am happy to see  that OMH in New York is now working with SLS to relocate patients to other treatment facilities.  In an article from Lohud.com dated November 30th 2011 the following is stated:

A Putnam County-based, for-profit mental health provider that treats teens and young adults lost its latest legal battle when an appellate court upheld the state mental health commissioner's decision to revoke its operating certificates because it violated patients' rights and ignored state regulations.

Though an attorney for SLS Residential Inc. said the company is appealing the ruling, a spokeswoman for the state Office of Mental Health said the agency will begin working with SLS to move its patients to other facilities.
The court issued its ruling Nov. 15, confirming an earlier decision by mental health Commissioner Michael F. Hogan to revoke three operating permits of SLS Residential, also known as Supervised LifeStyles.
Hogan's decision followed a 49-day hearing before the OMH that began in January 2010 and involved 31 witnesses and more than 200 exhibits.
"Having reviewed the record accordingly, we are satisfied that the hearing officer's determination that all of the charges were sustained is supported by substantial evidence based upon the record as a whole," said the ruling of the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department.
David L. Trueman, attorney for SLS, said Monday that his client already has filed an appeal to the full Second Department and will try to take the matter to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, if necessary.
On Friday, SLS sought a temporary restraining order that would have stopped the permit-revocation process but was denied.
The state OMH is already moving toward shutting down the 20-year-old company.
"We are gratified by the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which unanimously upheld the (OMH) commissioner's final determination revoking all three operating certificates," Leesa Rademacher said in a statement. "OMH will immediately begin working cooperatively with SLS to (ensure) that all patients currently being served by the programs will be transitioned to appropriate care settings."
The ruling is the latest in a court fight that began in November 2006 when state inspectors visited two residential facilities SLS operates in Southeast, found numerous violations and fined the company $80,000. Inspectors returned three weeks later and found more violations, resulting in another $30,000 in fines for a total of $110,000.
(Page 2 of 2)
Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.
The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.
The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.
A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.
The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.
SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision. The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.
Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, said he does not think it can successfully appeal the latest ruling.
"The courts are not likely to overturn the unanimous ruling upholding OMH's determination that SLS lacks the character and competence to operate a licensed facility in New York state," Feinberg wrote in an email Tuesday.

Among the violations were that SLS limited residents' contact with people outside the facility, violated their privacy by watching them as they used the bathroom, punished them unfairly and failed to conduct incident reviews as required by state law.

The state also alleged that SLS illegally restrained patients, but a court dismissed that charge and a $10,000 fine.
The state then moved to rescind the permits SLS uses to run its residential-treatment facilities and clinic. The company fought the fines and findings, first in a state hearing in 2007 and later with a motion in state Supreme Court in Putnam County before Justice Andrew O'Rourke.
A state hearing officer upheld the fines and findings, but O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS in December 2008.
The state then appealed O'Rourke's decision and, in November 2009, the court's Appellate Division largely overturned O'Rourke and reinstated most of the fines. SLS then requested a second hearing before the state OMH and Hogan, who upheld the charges.
SLS then filed an Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Second Department, seeking to overturn Hogan's decision. The court upheld Hogan with its Nov. 15 decision.
Pleasantville resident Glen Feinberg, an attorney who has alleged his son received abusive treatment while an SLS patient, said he does not think it can successfully appeal the latest ruling.
"The courts are not likely to overturn the unanimous ruling upholding OMH's determination that SLS lacks the character and competence to operate a licensed facility in New York state," Feinberg wrote in an email Tuesday.

Interesting thing I noticed.  SLS threatened and filed a lawsuit against the owner of aboutsls.blogspot.com saying several of his interpretations of ruling from the court were invalid and they in turn lost revenue over a period of time and are suing him for 6.5 million.  Over the past several days when tying to read the blog, a page opens up which said I had to log in and be invited to read the blog which is new to me I have read it freely without having to register or log in.  Today I used a back door link from this website to go to aboutsls.blogspot.com and it appears that the blog is dead and SLS owns the web address as it read SLS health the center for excellence or something like that and no longer has posts.  Possible that he agreed to remove the blog in order for SLS to drop the suit?? Also the Friends of SLS website does not exist either content wise it is a blank page.