STROUT & PAYSON, P.A. tomasomi sraeet RoneRT ), Levine tocktan ESTHER f. GaRSHART Enic B WORSE ATTORNEYS TeLsrHoNe PATRICK) MELLoR aoe Dany oney STON POST OFFICE BOX 248 Pax ciny © avteN ROCKLAND, MAINE 01841-0248 aden CcunTis PAYSON (1918-1999) ema Sosern Petticant (io3e-1983 seusonesTnivsoncon 2010) RANDAL WATRINSON (19. March 27, 2017 Ms. Mary Mayhew, Commissioner Department of Health and Human Services 221 State Street 11 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0011 RE: Notice of Claim Dear Commissioner Mayhew, Without acknowledging that my clients are required to provide this Notice, under 14 MRSA. §8107, the claimants hereby provide the following information to the Department of Health and Human Services: A. The name and address of the claimant, and the name and address of the claimant's attorney or other representative, if any; Claimants: Brian Rockett 29 Lucia Beach Road ‘Owls Head, Maine 04854 Eric Wass 18 Halls Lane Rockland, Maine 04841 Similarly situated individuals Claimants’ attorney: Patrick J. Mellor, Esq. Strout & Payson, P.A. 10 Masonic Street Rockland, Maine 04841B. Concise statement of the basis of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act, omission or occurrence complained of; ‘The State of Maine’s Prescription Monitoring Program rules and regulations (hereinafter “PMP rules and regulations”) disproportionately burdens disabled individuals because of their unique needs. Under DHHS's proposed rules, all individuals who suffer from chronic pain must go through a taper down to 100 mme prior to July 1, 2017, regardless of whether or not they have been on much high lawfully prescribed doses in the years or decades prior. Larger doses, often appearing extraordinary to those unfamiliar with Chronic Pain Syndrome, are needed for some of these individuals and must be properly timed for success in achieving adequate pain control. To the claimants and many medical professionals, the State's approach is unreasonable. In fact, the result of the proposed rules and regulations — if implemented — will constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to disparate impact on disabled individuals and failure to make reasonable accommodations for said individuals. Unlike other claims against governmental entities, the language of the Rehabilitation ‘Act and ADA makes it clear that Congress has abrogated the states’ immunity from suit in Federal Court under those statutes, ‘The federal regulations implementing the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require public entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. These laws also protects against disparate treatment of disabled individuals and creates an affirmative duty in some circumstances to provide special treatment, or reasonable accommodation. The law defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or ‘mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability. My clients fit the definition of disabled individuals. Claimants intend to pursue injunctive relief to prevent further irreparable damages. The “tapering” began in the winter of 2016 and is scheduled to continue. C. The name and address of any governmental employee involved. Maine Department of Health and Human Services. D. Concise statement of the nature and extent of the injury suffered. The “tapering” that has already been required of claimants has caused them significant bodily harm and will render them unable to work due and participate in basic life activities due to unabated chronic pain experienced in absence of adequate pain medication.E. A statement of the amount of monetary damages claime Claimants’ damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of work and the creation of chronic pain that is incapacitating. Damages have not been calculated with certainty at this time. To the extent claimants are prevented from working as a result of the actions taken by DHHS, damages will continue to accrue. Sincerely, Patrick J. Mellor