Date: 07-06-2013

Case Style: Scott Boling v. Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2012-3026

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kendall Wallace Johnson and Philip Bruce

Defendant's Attorney: David Branscum and Whitney Cheshier Buergler

Description: Scott Boling sued Shadow sued Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, UHS of Delaware, Inc., University Health Services, Inc.and Liliana Cardona on negligence theories claiming:

1. Plaintiffs are residents of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendant Liliana Cardona is a resident of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Shadow Mountain is a foreign limited liability company, formed under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

4. Defendant UHS of Delaware is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

5. Defendant UHS is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

6. The causes of action arose in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Thus, this Court is a proper venue for this cause of action.

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the causes of action and the parties hereto.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Scott and Brenda Boling adopted I.B. four years ago when I.B. was eleven years old. Prior to her adoption, I.B. had a long and traumatic history of sexual abuse, which caused severe mental and behavioral impairments.

9. Defendants Shadow Mountain, UHS Delaware, and UHS are in the business of providing psychiatric and psychological treatment, counseling, education, and psychotherapy to minor children who have mental and behavioral impairments in the nature suffered by I.B., Plaintiff herein.

10. Defendants UHS and UHS Delaware own and operate Defendant Shadow Mountain.

11. Defendant Cardona was a mental health technician for Defendants Shadow Mountain, UHS Delaware, and UHS from approximately June 2010 to October 2011.

12. In January 2011, Plaintiffs admitted I.B. to Defendants’ outpatient residential therapy program at Riverside Behavioral Health (“Riverside”) for the specific purpose of treating and diagnosing her mental and behavioral impairments caused in part by her history of sexual abuse.

13. While at Riverside, Defendant Cardona facilitated, arranged for, and allowed I.B. and a male resident to have private, intimate and/or sexual contact on at least two occasions.

14. Defendants subsequently discharged I.B. from Riverside in or around September, 2011 and, after an internal investigation, terminated Defendant Cardona from her employment.

15. Plaintiffs Scott and Brenda Boling were then required to admit I.B. to a different treatment facility.

16. Prior to December 23, 2011, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (“DHS”) initiated an investigation into Defendants’ actions or acquiescence in allowing I.B. to have private, intimate and/or sexual contact with another resident while under Defendants’ care and treatment.

17. At no time did Defendants inform or notify Plaintiffs Scott and Brenda Boling about the private, intimate and/or sexual contact or the investigation thereof.

CAUSES OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE

18. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the prior paragraphs in this Petition.

19. On or about January 28, 2011, I.B. was admitted to Riverside.

20. Scott and Brenda Boling specifically explained and described I.B.’s long history of sexual abuse to Defendants and described how she had a history of inappropriate and unhealthy behavior, including sexually acting out or forming unhealthy relationships with males.

21. Scott and Brenda Boling gave their informed consent for Defendants to supervise, care for, and treat I.B. for her mental and behavioral issues.

22. Defendants had a duty of care to both Scott and Brenda Boling and I.B..

23. Defendants breached their duty and standard of care when, on at least two occasions, Defendants facilitated, arranged, or were complicit in allowing I.B. to have sexual contact with a male resident.

24. Defendants did not report any investigation or allegations of the sexual contact to Scott or Brenda Boling to help the procure further proper treatment of I.B..

25. After I.B. was discharged, Defendant Cardona further made personal contact with I.B. on a social networking site, breaching ethical duties and the standard of care.

26. The negligence of Defendants resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

27. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

28. Defendant Cardona was an employee of Shadow Mountain, which UHS Delaware and UHS own and operate.

29. Defendant Cardona was acting within the scope of her employment and authority when she facilitated, arranged, or
was complicit in allowing I.B. to have sexual contact with another resident.

30. Defendants Shadow Mountain, UHS Delaware, and UHS are liable for the acts of their employee and agent.

31. Defendants’ actions under the liability theory of respondeat superior resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.

NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

32. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

33. Defendant Cardona was a mental health technician for Defendants.

34. Her employment position with Defendants required Defendant Cardona to supervise, care for, and provide certain treatments for I.B. and other residents.

35. While in her supervisory role, Defendant Cardona facilitated, arranged, or was complicit in allowing I.B. and another resident to have sexual contact.

36. This contact was harmful to I.B. based on her behavioral and mental health problems caused by her history of sexual abuse, which Defendants knew or should have known about.

37. Defendants Shadow Mountain, UHS Delaware, and UHS failed to properly train and supervise Defendant Cardona in how to supervise and care for patients with mental and behavioral disorders associated with sexual abuse.

38. Defendants’ negligent training and supervision resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.

NEGLIGENCE PER SE

39. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

40. In addition to the duty Defendants have to exercise ordinary care, there are also other duties imposed on Defendants by various statutes and regulations applicable to the care and treatment of I.B.

41. The violation of those statutes and regulations were a direct cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.

42. The applicable various statutes and regulations were in force and effect at the time of Defendants’ violations and conduct,

43. The Plaintiffs were the type of class the various regulations and statutes sought to protect.

44. The injuries sustained by Plaintiffs due to Defendants’ conduct were also the type of injury the various regulations and statutes sought to prevent.

45. Defendants’ violation of the various regulations and statutes resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

47. Plaintiffs reasonably placed their trust and confidence in Defendants for the care, treatment, and supervision of I.B.

48. Defendants knowingly accepted Plaintiffs’ trust and confidence to undertake the care, treatment, and supervision of I.B. on behalf of Plaintiffs.

49. Defendants breached this fiduciary duty by arranging or being complicit in allowing I.B. to have sexual contact with another resident while I.B. was in their care and supervision.

50. Defendants’ breach directly resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.
BREACH OF CONTRACT

51. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

52. On or around January 28, 2011 Plaintiffs Scott and Brenda Boling signed a Parent/Legal Guardian Contract for Treatment (the “Contract”).

53. The Contract was contained in the Riverside Behavioral Health Patient Care Handbook (the “Handbook”).

54. The terms of the Handbook expressly and/or impliedly created the terms, conditions, obligations, and promises that both Plaintiffs and Defendants were required to follow.

55. The Handbook expressly states that Defendants would not allow sexual contact between patients.

56. Defendants facilitated, arranged, or were complicit in allowing I.B. to have sexual contact with another resident, thus breaching the Contract.

57. As a result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in excess of $75,000 or, alternatively, damages in an amount that will put Plaintiffs in a position in as good a position had Defendants not breached the contract.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of their prior paragraphs in this Petition.

59. Defendants’ actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious an utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

60. Defendants’ actions intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.

61. Defendants’ actions resulted in damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $75,000.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, Defendant UHS of Delaware, Inc., Defendant United Health Services, Inc., and Defendant Liliana Cardona in an amount in excess of $75,000, including all actual damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and for a reasonable attorney fee and for such other relief as the Court deems just.

Shadown Mountain Behavioral Halth System, LLC, UHS of Delaware, Inc., and University Health Services, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

1. Each and every allegation in the Plaintiffs’ Petition is denied, including the prayer for relief, unless specifically admitted in this Answer.

2. These Defendants are without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 17 and 24 of the Petition. As such, these allegations are denied.

3. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 Plaintiffs’ Petition, it is admitted that Defendant Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. is a limited liability company, formed under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. All other remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are denied.

4. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 Plaintiffs’ Petition, it is admitted that Defendant UHS of Delaware, Inc. is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. All other remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are denied.

5. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition, it is admitted that Defendant Universal Health Services, Inc. is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. All remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied.

6. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, it is admitted that the allegations contained within Plaintiffs’ Petition arose in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. However, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.

7. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 21, 22, 24, 40, 47 and 48 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.

8. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, it is admitted that Defendant Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. d/b/a Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System provides behavioral health care services to children and adolescents. It is further admitted that UHS of Delaware, Inc. is a healthcare management company that provides management services to Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. In addition, it is admitted that Defendant Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. d/b/a Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System is an indirect subsidiary of Defendant Universal Health Services, Inc. All remaining allegations are denied.

9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition are denied.
Defendants advise that Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. owns and operates Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System. Defendants further advise that Defendant Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C. d/b/a Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System is an indirect subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. and that UHS of Delaware, Inc. provides management services to Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, L.L.C.

1

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: