This is the version of the Complaint that was sent to Jeanne Crespi. Despite being the “Person in Charge” at Corrigan, she neglected to reply, even to acknowledge receipt, as (you will see) I specifically requested in the letter.

Thu, Feb 13, 10:44 AM

to jeanne.crespi

Dear Jeanne.  

I just found out that you are the Person in Charge at Corrigan MHC. If this is not true, please advise.  Please also confirm receipt of this email.  Note: I have sent this complaint before, but DMH personnel appear to operate under a policy by which they do not reply or even acknowledge receipt of emails.  I first raised this issue to Larry Weiner in October 2024, and never heard back.  I have recently started trying to alert someone who will actually acknowledge that the complaint has been received and filed.  So that I don't have to keep explaining it!

104 CMR, § 32.04 provides that, "Any person may make a complaint to the Person in Charge regarding a ... condition involving a client which he or she believes to be dangerous, illegal, or inhumane."

I am making this complaint regarding a condition involving many clients. I believe that this condition is inhumane and, based on the information currently available to me, also illegal. 

The group of patients for whom this inhumane and/or illegal condition pertains are all those patients who are unwilling or unable to access the outdoors during the approximately four scheduled outdoor periods.  Some do not have the executive functioning to be aware of the breaks. Some are too socially anxious to proceed with the group to the outdoor space. Some may be too intimidated by the steep, dark, narrow passage way to the outdoors.  

[One basic problem with the Corrigan IPU is that it does not track who actually does go outside. It does not track whether a particular patient has been outside at all, despite the patient's being in the unit for many day, weeks, or months.  Thus, it is difficult to precisely define the individuals who do not go outside, their common characteristics, or the extent of the problem.  But this is due to faulty tracking by Corrigan. It should not occlude the underlying problem.]

To provide labels, we can say that only the Youthful patients are able to and do access the outdoors while at Corrigan.  The Compromised patients are those that do not access the outdoors daily.  The reasons for their not accessing the outdoors can be various, but common sense says it would be physical (obesity) or mental (executive functioning, phobias, paranoia) disorders such that a patient can not reasonably be expected to go outside if all Corrigan does is post and announce outdoors times, given that many patients would not be able to access the outside under the pressured group dynamic at Corrigan.  One patient I recall specifically had paranoia and social phobia to an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to access the outdoors under current conditions.  Another does not have the executive functioning, situational awareness, or capacity for proactive agency to access under current conditions. Another is too obese.  A fourth was too catatonic for accessing the outdoors.

I believe this is inhumane (and if you are unsure, I am happy to provide you citations, for example those which support the position that not getting access to the outdoors is a form of torture. I previously provided a citation to Mr. Weiner in October, but can provide more if you would like.).

Is it illegal or unlawful as well?  104 CMR 27.13(6)(f) states: "A patient of a facility ... shall have reasonable daily access to the outdoors." where "reasonable daily access" means "supervised or unsupervised daily access to the outdoors, individually or in groups." 

… [M]y argument is that, for Compromised patients, Corrigan does not in fact provide legitimate or bona fide "access" to the outdoors. 

The word "access," after all, means either "liberty, or ability to enter, approach, or pass to and from a place" or "freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something."

Given the disorders suffered by the Compromised patients, in combination with the physical plant at Corrigan, simply announcing group times does not provide liberty, ability, or freedom for these patients. That is, for the Compromised patients, Corrigan only provides apparent (not real), nominal (not actual) or sham (not true) access. 

As noted in my October email to Mr. Weiner, I presume that Corrigan has dealt with these issues annually since the law started mandating outdoor access or since the public became aware of the inhumanity of not being able to go outside.  Specifically, I presume Corrigan had to provide a plan as specified and required by 104 CMR 27.13(6)(f)5. And that plan would have received DMH approval annually.

I he asked for a copy of this plan but no one will provide it.  If there is such a plan, and it is accurate, then it is possible that Corrigan's policy is not illegal/unlawful. In that case, I would withdraw part of my complaint, viz., that part based on my understanding that the condition is illegal or unlawful. The remainder of my complaint (i.e., that the condition is inhumane) would remain intact, and I would ask that it receive due consideration.

If there is no plan, then I recommend that one should be completed, and DMH approval sought.  In this case too, my Complaint on inhumane grounds remains intact. 

Jeanne, could you please show me what I consider to be a minimum of respect by simply acknowledging receipt of this email?  Do you want me to send it certified mail?  

I hope you are well!

Sincerely, 

August Baker, PhD