WCLP Newsletter
Advocates: Register or login
The settlement of Napper v. Sacramento County ensures that some 5,000 adults with significant psych... Read More..
This week, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) issued new state regulations resul... Read More..
CalWORKs recipients are paying more than $20 Million a year in surcharges to banks in order to ac... Read More..
Please subscribe to our RRS feed by clicking the button below to receive on-going updates to any new postings.
Napper v. County of Sacramento: Western Center, along with co-counsel Disability Rights CA and pro-bono attorneys from Cooley LLP, filed a federal class action suit on May 6th to prevent the devastating and unlawful termination of essential mental health services to 5,000 residents with severe mental illness by Sacramento County. Click here to read more..
Napper v. County of Sacramento: Western Center, along with co-counsel Disability Rights CA and pro-bono attorneys from Cooley LLP, filed a federal class action suit on May 6th to prevent the devastating and unlawful termination of essential mental health services to 5,000 residents with severe mental illness by Sacramento County. Yesterday, the judge issued a preliminary restraining order, noting that the County’s proposed actions violate the federal law that protects disabled Americans and would cause "catastrophic harm" to thousands of patients in community outpatient programs. .
Poole v. County of Sacramento: In early June Sacramento County proposed closing two of its three primary indigent health care clinics and halving services at the third, effective July 1st. These clinics serve approximately 25,000 people. If the cuts were enacted, patients in need of specialty care would wait over a year for a referral; patients with urgent dental conditions would wait 5 weeks for an appointment; and same day x-rays of broken bones would not be available. Western Center and Legal Services of Northern California filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Sacramento Superior Court, alleging that the County was violating both its duty under the Welfare & Institutions Code to relieve and support its indigent population, and also public notice requirements under the Beilenson Act. The Judge issued a TRO on July 1st and the defendant subsequently stipulated to a preliminary restraining order.