What does 'rehabilitation' legally mean for Texas blind services run by the Commission for the Blind?

Plain-English summary

A state senator, acting for a constituent, asked the Attorney General for the legal definition of "rehabilitation" as it applies to the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center and the Texas Commission for the Blind. The request grew out of a dispute between a man named Allen Cole and the Center over whether the services he received were adequate.

The Attorney General answered the definitional part and stopped there. Title 5 of the Human Resources Code, which governs the Commission and services for the blind and visually handicapped, contains no freestanding definition of "rehabilitation." It does define related terms in subchapter D of chapter 91: "vocational rehabilitation" (or "vocational rehabilitation services") means services the Commission determines are necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation, and "rehabilitation training" means the training necessary to compensate for that handicap. The Commission is charged under section 91.052 to run a program providing those vocational rehabilitation services, and it operates the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center as part of that program.

The Attorney General then declined to go further. Whether the Commission had actually fulfilled its obligation in a particular case, that is, whether a specific person received adequate services, depends on resolving factual issues, and the opinion process cannot make those factual determinations or settle that kind of controversy. The opinion instead pointed to the routes that do handle such complaints: the administrative appeals process described in the Center's rules and consumer handbook, and the statutory right under section 91.058 of an aggrieved applicant or recipient to a hearing by the Commission.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The Texas Commission for the Blind has since been consolidated into other state agencies, so confirm the current agency and rules before relying on this opinion.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The senator and the constituent who asked (the scope of the answer): The opinion provided the statutory definitions of "vocational rehabilitation," "vocational rehabilitation services," and "rehabilitation training" from chapter 91, but expressly declined to decide whether the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center had provided adequate services in the constituent's case, calling that a fact question outside the opinion process.

People disputing services from the Commission for the Blind (what the opinion held for them): The opinion noted that a consumer who disagrees with a Commission action at the Center may use the appeals process for the program from which the consumer was referred, with details in the Center's consumer handbook, and that section 91.058 entitles an aggrieved applicant or recipient to a hearing by the Commission. It did not decide any individual claim.

Common questions

What is the legal definition of "vocational rehabilitation" for blind Texans?
Under the statute the opinion quoted, it means services the Commission for the Blind determines are necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation.

Did the Attorney General decide whether the Center provided adequate services?
No. The opinion concluded that whether the Commission met its obligation in a particular case depends on factual issues, which an advisory legal opinion cannot resolve.

If someone thinks the Commission's services were inadequate, what did the opinion point to?
The opinion identified the administrative appeals process described in the Center's rules and consumer handbook, and the right under section 91.058 to a hearing by the Commission.

Background and statutory framework

Section 91.052 of the Human Resources Code charges the Texas Commission for the Blind to "conduct a program to provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible blind disabled individuals." Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.052(a) (Vernon 2001). As part of that program the Commission operates the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center, a comprehensive rehabilitation facility in Austin. 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 162.1 (2001).

Title 5 of the Code contains no standalone definition of "rehabilitation," but subchapter D of chapter 91 defines "vocational rehabilitation" or "vocational rehabilitation services" as services the Commission determines are necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation, and "rehabilitation training" as the training necessary to compensate for that handicap. Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.051(6), (7) (Vernon 2001). The opinion reasoned that whether the Commission, in a given case, provided the services it "determines are necessary," id. § 91.051(6), is a fact-dependent question and so beyond an advisory opinion.

The opinion closed by identifying the avenues for resolving such disputes. A consumer who disagrees with a Commission action at the Center "may use the appeals process established for the program from which the consumer was referred," with details in the consumer handbook. 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 162.3(d), (a) (2001). And section 91.058 provides that an aggrieved applicant for or recipient of services "is entitled to a hearing by the commission in accordance with law." Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.058 (Vernon 2001).

Citations

Statutory and regulatory provisions:

• Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.052(a) (Vernon 2001)
• Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.051(6), (7) (Vernon 2001)
• Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.051(6) (Vernon 2001)
• Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 91.058 (Vernon 2001)
• 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 162.1 (2001)
• 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 162.3(d) (2001)
• 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 162.3(a) (2001)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0470
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2002/jc0470.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official scanned PDF. Minor character-level errors from the source OCR have been corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS

JOHN CORNYN

February 26, 2002

The Honorable Mike Moncrief
Chairman
Committee on Health and Human Services
Texas State Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Opinion No. JC-0470

Re: Meaning of "rehabilitation" for purposes of title 5 of the Texas Human Resources Code, which relates to services for the blind and visually handicapped (RQ-0429-JC)

Dear Senator Moncrief:

On behalf of a constituent, you have asked this office for a definition of "rehabilitation" for the purposes of title 5 of the Human Resources Code. While we can provide you with the statutory definition of "vocational rehabilitation," we caution that the resolution of any dispute as to whether a particular member of the public has received adequate rehabilitative services would require factual determinations of a sort this office cannot make in the opinion process. Accordingly, we cannot resolve such a controversy.

As we understand it, the question before us arises from a dispute between Mr. Allen Cole and the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center (the "CCRC") concerning the adequacy of services provided by the CCRC to Mr. Cole.[1] You have asked, on Mr. Cole's behalf, for "an opinion of the legal definition of 'rehabilitation,' as it pertains to the Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center and the Texas Commission for the Blind." Request Letter, supra note 1.

The Texas Commission for the Blind (the "Commission") is charged by section 91.052 of the Human Resources Code to "conduct a program to provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible blind disabled individuals." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 91.052(a) (Vernon 2001). As part of its program to provide such services, it operates the CCRC, "a comprehensive rehabilitation facility . . . in Austin, Texas." 40 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 162.1 (2001).

We have found no definition of the word "rehabilitation" standing alone in title 5 of the Human Resources Code, which governs the Commission and services for the blind and visually handicapped generally. However, the terms "vocational rehabilitation," "vocational rehabilitation services," and "rehabilitation training" are defined in subchapter D of chapter 91 of the Code:

(6) "Vocational rehabilitation" or "vocational rehabilitation services" means services that are provided by the commission or through a public or private agency and that the [executive] director [of the Commission for the Blind] determines are necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so that the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation. . . .

(7) "Rehabilitation training" means all necessary training provided to a blind disabled individual to compensate for an employment handicap. . . .

TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 91.051(6), (7) (Vernon 2001) (emphasis added).

The Commission, then, is charged to provide such services as it "determines are necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so that the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation." Id. § 91.051(6). Whether in a particular case the Commission has fulfilled that obligation is, however, a question dependent on the resolution of any number of factual issues, and is accordingly not a matter which an advisory legal opinion of this office can determine.[2]

The CCRC, about which you also inquire and with which Mr. Cole has had dealings, is the subject of chapter 162 of title 40 of the Texas Administrative Code. We note that the administrative rules governing the center include specific reference to appellate processes:

A consumer who disagrees with an action taken by the Commission in the administration of its services at CCRC may use the appeals process established for the program from which the consumer was referred.

40 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 162.3(d) (2001). Details of the appellate process are available from the CCRC's consumer handbook. Id. § 162.3(a). Further, we note that section 91.058 of the Human Resources Code provides that an aggrieved applicant for or recipient of services "is entitled to a hearing by the commission in accordance with law." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 91.058 (Vernon 2001).

SUMMARY

The Texas Commission for the Blind is charged by statute to provide vocational rehabilitation services, defined as those "necessary to compensate a blind disabled individual for an employment handicap so that the individual may engage in a remunerative occupation." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 91.051(6) (Vernon 2001). Whether the Commission has provided adequate services in a particular case requires determinations of matters of fact, and is therefore not a question which can be answered in an advisory legal opinion by the Office of the Attorney General.

Yours very truly,

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY FULLER
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

James E. Tourtelott
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Mike Moncrief, Texas State Senator, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (Sept. 4, 2001) (on file with Opinion Committee) (letter of July 9, 2001, from Ernest Allen Cole to Alisha Turnbull attached) [hereinafter Request Letter].

[2] See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0298 (2000) at 1 (stating that we cannot resolve fact dispute); JC-0020 (1999) at 2 (investigating and resolving fact questions "cannot be done in the opinion process"); DM-98 (1992) at 3 ("[Q]uestions of fact . . . cannot be resolved in the opinion process.").