The DHS 94 grievance process has no jurisdiction over issues raised by an individual under the control of the
Department of Corrections. The individual who brought the complaint was redirected to appeal through the DOC inmate complaint system. (Level
III decision in Case No. 98-SGE-01 on 2/6/98.)
A county received a complaint about denial of services. The county treated the complaint as a
reapplication for services and thus did not follow the DHS 94 grievance process rules. Since the complainants clearly identified it as
a grievance and asked that a Client Rights Specialist investigate it, this was a violation of the complainants’ right of access to the
grievance process. (Level III decision in Case No. 98-SGE-03 on 11/10/98.)
Subsection 51.30(4)(b)5 allows access without consent "...to qualified staff members of the
department... as is necessary to determine progress and adequacy of treatment..." Thus the State Grievance Examiner is allowed to
obtain otherwise confidential records without the informed consent of the complainant. (Level IV decision in Case No. 98-SGE-02 on 1/22/99.)
The grievance procedure under DHS 94 has no authority to award damages. Monetary damages can be
pursued and awarded only by a court of law. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on 4/6/00.)
A patient’s ex-husband attempted to file a grievance on his ex-wife’s behalf about the fees charged
for her mental health services. He had been ordered by the divorce court to pay that bill. He lacked standing to bring the complaint or
appeal it through the grievance process without his ex-wife’s consent. Patient rights attached to her, not her ex-husband,
since she was the one receiving the treatment. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-06 on 4/14/00.)
The rights and grievance procedure in DHS 94 do not apply to the Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP) or the driver’s
safety program plans. [See DSL Memo Series 2000-04 on 4/25/00.] (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)
Even though the patient rights and grievance procedure in DHS 94 do not apply to the Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP)
or the driver’s safety program plans, where an individual is also in a methadone treatment program, she has patient rights and access
to the grievance process regarding that treatment. (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)
Where a methadone clinic discouraged a patient from bringing an advocate with him to a team meeting, the
clinic violated his right to bring a grievance without fear of retaliation or discrimination. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on
5/17/00. Appeal to Level IV by the patient was dismissed since the Level III decision was in his favor.)
Where a Level II grievance decision did not advise the complainant of his right to a state-level review, his rights
were violated. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on 5/17/00. Appeal to Level IV by the patient was dismissed since the Level III
decision was in his favor.)
Where a methadone clinic did not ensure that all clinic employees were aware of patient rights and the grievance
process, they violated the patients’ rights. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on 5/17/00. Appeal to Level IV by the patient
was dismissed since the Level III decision was in his favor.)
The DHS 94 grievance procedure does not include a "fair hearing". (Level IV decision in Case No.
99-SGE-02 on 5/24/00.)
Someone in a methadone treatment program can ask for a "fair hearing" only when they have
been involuntarily terminated from the program. (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-02 on 5/24/00.)
A therapist’s supervisor correctly referred a client to the facility’s Client Rights Specialist to file a
complaint about the therapist. The client felt the supervisor did not care about her concerns. However, the referral was appropriate and
did not violate the client’s right to be treated with dignity and respect. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on 6/17/00, upheld at Level
IV.)
A favorable grievance decision cannot be appealed by the prevailing party. (Level IV decision in Case No.
00-SGE-02 on 6/17/00.)
The meaning and applicability of the section of DHS 94.24(3) regarding "redress through the grievance
procedure" is to assure that no one is deprived of using the grievance procedure to seek redress for an alleged violation of his or her
rights. It does not allow for the award of punitive monetary damages in the grievance process. Only a court can award damages. The
individual whose rights were allegedly violated must initiate any court action. (Level IV decision in Case No. 00-SGE-02 on 6/17/00.)
A patient at a county psychiatric hospital complained about a seclusion incident. He raised issue about
whether there was justification for the initial use of seclusion and whether he was released in a prompt and timely manner. There was a
discrepancy between a verbal report of one staff and the documentation form that was completed while he was in seclusion. In the Level I grievance
decision, the Client Rights Specialist (CRS) made a suggestion that staff more carefully document anything of concern that may be
displayed while a patient is in seclusion. The improvements in documentation made by the hospital in response to his complaint were noted.
The patient withdrew his complaint at Level III. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-13 on 8/2/00.)
Where the county’s Client Rights Specialist was also the case manager of a woman bringing a complaint, a
conflict of interest arose. In that case, the CRS had the discretion to skip the county stage of the process and forward the grievance
to the State Grievance Examiner. [Note: Another option would have been to have another county staff member act as the alternate CRS for that
case.] (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on 1/3/01.)
The Level I Client Rights Specialist has the discretion to look beyond the original complaint
to identify related client rights issues, even if they are not articulated as such. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on 1/3/01.)
Where a complainant had already initiated a civil lawsuit on the issues raised in the grievance, the State
Grievance Examiner has the discretion to not issue a decision in the patient rights grievance procedure. A court decision takes precedence over
a grievance decision. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-07 on 1/3/01.)
The State Grievance Examiner is responsible for ensuring compliance with the grievance procedure
on behalf of all patients protected by DHS 94 client rights. As such, the SGE has a role in providing technical assistance to Client
Rights Specialists who issue Level I and II decisions. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
The Client Rights Specialist’s is expected to be objective and neutral in regard to a complaint. The CRS is
expected to investigate all allegations raised in a complaint. (Level III decision in Case No. 99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
When a patient raises treatment issues, it is not sufficient for the Client Rights Specialist to simply
note the response of the patient’s attending physician. Further investigation may be required. (Level III decision in Case No.
99-SGE-12 on 1/3/01.)
