GROUP HOME

 

Jurisdiction:  Hampden County Superior Court, Springfield, MA

     This case involved a “group-home” outreach program that provided 20-hour-a-week supervision of “developmentally disabled” adults.  The plaintiff's theory in this case was that the plaintiff suffered an aneurysm as a result of a blood clot that had originated from a shunt at the bottom of his skull.  The death was the outgrowth of a longtime congenital hydrocephalus.  The plaintiff was mildly disabled as a result of the congenital hydrocephalus and worked as a bagger at a local grocery store.  Upon reaching his adulthood, the plaintiff was permitted to work and live on his own in a partially supervised setting.  He was approximately 32 years old at the time of his death.  The plaintiff lived in Section 8 housing provided for developmentally disabled adults.  The defendant Brown and Sullivan Outreach Services, funded by the Department of Mental Retardation, would provide a 20-hour-a-week worker to visit the home both in the morning and evening in order to check on the plaintiff and make sure the plaintiff had taken his daily medications and was eating and caring for himself properly.
     On the day of his death the plaintiff was in the home complaining that he had developed a headache.  The defendant's employee indicated that this was not unusual; the plaintiff had taken some aspirin and was resting on the couch.  The employee was not scheduled to return that day and in fact did not check on the plaintiff until the next morning, at which time the plaintiff was semi-conscious.  He later died.  The allegation was that the defendant's employee failed to take notice and appreciate the plaintiff's medical condition.  The defense was that the plaintiff’s complaints were ordinary and there was no way of knowing that the plaintiff would at some point later suffer from an aneurysm.
     The plaintiffs retained a psychiatrist/neurologist to testify that the plaintiff's predisposition to aneurysms as a result of the shunt at the base of his brain was something that the defendants knew about and should have sought medical advice.  Further, he opined that the defendant should educate its employees in order to understand and know the warning signs of same.
     The defense was that this congenital condition which required a shunt at the base of the plaintiff's skull for the purposes of releasing the pressure was a byproduct of the congenital hydrocephalus that resulted in an aneurysm.  The headache earlier in the day was not necessarily an indicator of that.  The headache appeared to be routine in nature and was more likely the result of a very hot day in which the plaintiff had worked as a bagger at the grocery store earlier in the day.  Further, it was the defense's position that the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to offer a “standard of care” opinion. The court agreed and excluded the plaintiff's expert; this resulted in a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case.

 

Jurisdiction: Essex Superior Court, Lawrence, MA
    
     This matter involved a 25 year old developmentally disabled adult who had been allegedly abused while a resident at a Life Links facility, a group home setting.
     The plaintiff had testified through his psychiatrist and through his parents that he was not prone to violent outbursts and had been relatively stable for a number of years until he became a resident at the Life Links facility.
     The allegations were that as a result of systematic abuse by two of the Life Links employees, that he had become violent and as a result fled the Life Links house one evening and sustained substantial injuries to his lower extremities when hit by a car.  The injuries were multiple fractures which resulted in substantial impairment in the use of one of his legs.
     The defense was able to develop through a series of records from the plaintiff's history of institutionalization that he had demonstrated violent tendencies repeatedly and regularly over a long period of time.  The plaintiff’s parents attempted to distinguish this past conduct and claimed that it was different from that he was now exhibiting.  They alleged that the conduct that he was now exhibiting was due to systematic abuse and further and further caused him run out of the group home on the night he sustained his serious orthopedic injuries.
     The defense was able to establish that the discipline instituted by Life Links and its two employees was appropriate and within the bounds of reasonableness.  Several attempts were made to safeguard the patient and keep him from harming himself prior to the day of his accident. 
     As a result the jury found in favor of the defendant individual employees and against Life Links and returned a verdict for approximately $40,000.00 with interest, the medical costs incurred.
     Given allegations of abuse the case had potential verdict in excess of one million dollars if a jury were to conclude that this developmentally disabled adult was being systematically and regularly abused.  Accordingly, plaintiff's demand right up until the time of the verdict was 1.2 million dollars.