Settlement Secures Major Reforms at Brooklyn Hospital Where Patient Died on Waiting Room Floor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – A settlement agreement and court order signed today by a federal judge establishes a framework for the systemic reform of Kings County Hospital Center's (KCHC) psychiatric facilities, where staff ignored a Brooklyn woman in June 2008 as she suffered and died on the emergency room floor.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) and Kirkland & Ellis LLP filed a civil rights lawsuit against KCHC and the New York Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC) in 2007. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the United States Department of Justice began its own investigation of KCHC's psychiatric facilities.
Under the terms of the settlement, the NYCLU, MHLS and Kirkland & Ellis will partner with the U.S. Department of Justice to closely monitor the hospital for the next five years to ensure that it is fulfilling its obligations to protect the New Yorkers it serves. The court also approved a separate settlement involving the U.S. Department of Justice.
"The systemic reform outlined in this settlement should ensure that another tragedy, like the one that claimed Esmin Green's life, never happens at this hospital again," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. "But we are mindful that ending the culture of indifference that has plagued this hospital is a massive undertaking. This settlement is just a start. The real test is what happens over time. Over the course of this litigation, HHC has put in place a hospital leadership that is capable of doing the right thing. This settlement will allow us to monitor them and the hospital at every step to ensure that reforms are executed, conditions improve and patients receive the best possible care."
The NYCLU, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP sued the KCHC in federal court in May 2007 after investigators found unsanitary, inhumane and dangerous conditions in the public hospital's psychiatric ward. The complaint described the hospital's psychiatric emergency room and inpatient unit as "a chamber of filth, decay, indifference and danger," and sought an end to pervasive neglect and abusive treatment in the hospital's psychiatric facilities.
The lawsuit – Sidney Hirschfeld, Director of Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Second Judicial Department v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., et al. – triggered an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which issued a report last year calling conditions at the hospital's psychiatric ward "highly dangerous" and requiring "immediate attention." The report concluded that the hospital regularly fails "to properly assess, diagnose, supervise, monitor and treat its mental health patients."
Conditions at KCHC drew national attention in July of 2008 after the NYCLU, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, and Kirkland & Ellis released security camera footage of Esmin Green, a 49-year-old Brooklyn woman, dying on the waiting room floor of the hospital's psychiatric emergency room. The footage, acquired through the lawsuit, showed hospital staff ignoring Green as she writhed on the floor. Green had been in the waiting room for more than 24 hours.
Following release of the video, a federal court ordered the city to initiate emergency reforms at the hospital, including requirements that every patient be checked every 15 minutes, that there be no more than 25 patients at any time in the psychiatric emergency ward, and that detailed records on the ward be turned over every week to the advocates involved in the lawsuit. Today's settlement and consent judgment represent much broader reforms.
The settlement agreement is part of the advocates' lawsuit while the consent judgment concerns a lawsuit the DOJ filed today against New York City. The advocates and DOJ collaborated in negotiating both documents.
"The court's approval of the reform and monitoring mandates contained in the settlement agreement is the beginning of the process. The hardest work lies ahead," said Rob Cohen, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis. "We will continue our work with the same vigilance with which we pursued the lawsuit. In this regard, we very much look forward to partnering with the Justice Department, which will play a critical role in ensuring that this settlement agreement produces real and lasting reform."
Under the terms of the settlement and consent judgment, the hospital agreed to develop and implement a wide series reforms to provide the best standard of care. The reforms include:
- Ensuring patients in the psychiatric emergency room receive timely assessments and care, and prevent overcrowding in the psychiatric emergency room. Stays in the psychiatric emergency room must not exceed the state mandate of 24 hours.
- Preventing the use of restraints on patients except as a last resort when the patient is an immediate threat to himself or others, and reducing the use of emergency psychotropic medications.
- Instituting appropriate discharge planning to place patients into the least restrictive setting possible that provides the support they need. This will prevent patients continually cycling through the hospital.
- Promoting staff accountability, protecting whistleblowers and facilitating reporting of patient grievances
- Compiling accurate data on the treatment, flow and disposition of patients in the psychiatric emergency room and inpatient units, which must be delivered to plaintiffs periodically.
"We now have a blueprint for improving the standard of care at the psychiatric facilities and protecting patients' rights," said Beth Haroules, NYCLU senior staff attorney. "While we're confident the hospital's staff is capable of implementing these reforms, it is our job over the next five years to make sure they do so."
A six-member team of outside experts provided by the advocates and DOJ will have access to the hospital's buildings and facilities, records, staff, contractors and patients. The experts will report to the advocates and DOJ every three months. Also, the hospital must provide the advocates with copies of incident reports twice a week, including incidents of patient or staff member violence, and acts or omissions by staff that put patients at risk of serious harm.
"Incidents of violence at KCHC used to be accepted as a way of life. That we will get regular reports of these and other incidents is a major step forward in seeking to convert the KCHC psychiatric emergency room and inpatient units into safe, humane and therapeutic environments," said Dennis Feld, MHLS deputy director of Special Litigation and Appeals. "It also supplies a transparency where administration and direct care staff will be held fully accountable whenever harm befalls a patient whether at the hands of staff or other patients."
The monitoring will last for at least five years. It can be extended if the advocates and DOJ determine the hospital has not made sufficient progress.
To read all of the court documents in full, visit:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.