(a) On or before September 30, 1991, the Commissioner of Developmental Services shall adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, establishing (1) criteria for (A) determining eligibility for services provided by the department, (B) determining which individuals shall receive a specific service, and (C) selecting private sector service providers, and (2) uniform procedures to be used by the regional offices in determining which individuals shall receive services and in selecting private sector service providers. Such procedures shall specify the decision-making authority of the department's central office and the regional offices and set parameters within which each shall operate.
(b) Each regional office, following a format developed by the department's central office and taking into account the regulations developed by the commissioner, shall prepare a written protocol to be used in determining which individuals shall receive services and in selecting service providers. The protocol shall be approved by the commissioner.
(P.A. 90-164, S. 2; P.A. 07-73, S. 2(b); 07-238, S. 1; P.A. 18-32, S. 4.)
History: Pursuant to P.A. 07-73 “Commissioner of Mental Retardation” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Developmental Services”, effective October 1, 2007; P.A. 07-238 made technical changes in Subsec. (a) and deleted former Subsec. (c) re requirement that department evaluate each region's adherence to its approved protocol; P.A. 18-32 amended Subsecs. (a)(1)(B) and (b) by replacing “clients” with “individuals”, effective July 1, 2018.
Notes of Decisions
Christopher R. v. Comm'r of Mental Retardation, 893 A.2d 431 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 11× “6 The trial court first *601 examined the statutory scheme, specifically, the definition of mental retardation under § 1-lg and the legislature’s grant of authority to the defendant under General Statutes § 17a-212 7 to promulgate regulations establishing eligibility criteria…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.