This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Negligent Care
Fraud, Malice and Oppression

John Doe v. FamiliesFirst Inc.

Published: Jun. 3, 2017 | Result Date: Apr. 14, 2017 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 34-2014-00172564 Verdict –  $12,050,000

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sean R. Laird
(The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird)


Defendant

Reuben B. Jacobson
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

Kim M. Wells
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

George E. Nowotny III
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Cloie B. Johnson
(technical)

Anthony J. Urquiza
(medical)

Keith Carr
(technical)

Robert D. Johnson
(technical)

Defendant

Jeffrey Sugar
(medical)

Neal Sternberg
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff John Doe was residing at the EMQ FamiliesFirst group home in Davis. Due to understaffing, children were allowed to leave campus unsupervised and without permission. Plaintiff filed suit against FamiliesFirst after multiple children were sexually assaulted over a two-month period.

Seven days before plaintiff's sexual victimization, a Department of Social Services representative visited the facility and met with its top managing agent, Clinical Director Audrie Meyer.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that DSS had informed Meyer that it had received an anonymous complaint of understaffing and inadequate supervision of children and were beginning an investigation. DSS directed Meyer to increase its staffing levels immediately in order to keep the children safe. FamiliesFirst Inc., in response, did nothing, and on May 27, another child was raped while off campus, unsupervised. When the child disclosed the sexual assault to her on-campus clinician, the clinician reported it to Meyer, whom plaintiff claimed replied, "Well, when they're tired of being raped, they'll come back."

Just two days later, 11 severely emotionally disturbed children were once again AWOL, unsupervised, at a nearby park. Police responded to a citizen call of children fighting at the park. A little after 6 p.m. Davis Police documented the names and identifying information of each child and called FamiliesFirst. FamiliesFirst indicated they didn't have enough staff to come get the children. Plaintiff, who was 12 years old at the time, but functioning somewhere between a 2-4 year old, was one of the 11 children the facility didn't have the staff to supervise. Title 22 regulations require adequate staff at all times to provide 24-hour care and supervision to all of the children.

The facility did nothing to notify plaintiff's parents that their child was once again unsupervised off-campus in exceedingly dangerous circumstances. Plaintiff's father, a firefighter, and plaintiff's mother, a nurse, would have rushed to Davis had they been notified. Despite living less than an hour away, plaintiff's parents were never called. Instead, their son and ten other severely emotionally disturbed children were left to fend for themselves. In the late evening hours, plaintiff was sexually victimized in a public bathroom stall. Though scheduled to graduate the program and come home with just wraparound services, plaintiff never fully recovered and has never returned home.

FamiliesFirst's neglect was apparent across the board in nearly every aspect of his care. Plaintiff was supposed to receive individualized therapy at least once a week. He received zero individual therapy from Dec. 15, 2012 to April 3, 2013. This was the same time period that the line staff described a complete lack of staff, and a lack of responsiveness and support from upper management. Moreover, plaintiff's documented needs and service plan prohibited him from being placed in California's most restrictive restraint, called the Quiet Room. The plan was specifically changed to prevent this, as it was documented two weeks into his stay that the Quiet Room was causing plaintiff distress. Despite this, as chaos ensued at the understaffed campus, plaintiff was repeatedly placed in the Quiet Room.

Plaintiff claimed severe neglect and sexual victimization led to psychological injuries and defendants engaged in fraud, malice and oppression.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed their conduct had no causative effect and that they meet the standard of care.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant made a CCP 998 offer of $2,350,000.

Result

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $12,050,000, which included $4.55 million in compensatory damages, and $7.5 million in punitive damages.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 8, 2014.

Length

six weeks


#113500

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390