John Doe vs. Grove School

8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School

1/14

To protect the plaintiffs privacy, he is referred to as John Doe. An Ex Parte1

Application to Proceed under a pseudonym has been filed.

1

RETURN DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2010 : SUPERIOR COURT: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN

JOHN DOE, :Plaintiff, : AT NEW HAVEN

:VS. :

:GROVE SCHOOL, INC. :

Defendant : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

C O M P L A I N T

FIRST COUNT (NEGLIGENCE)

1. At all times mentioned herein, the plaintiff JOHN DOE was a minor, with a date1

of birth of March 2, 1991. He has now reached the age of majority. He is a resident of the

Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the defendant GROVE SCHOOL, INC.

was a Connecticut Corporation operating a private therapeutic boarding school located at

175 Copse Road in Madison, Connecticut, that provided residential educational and

psychiatric services to adolescents with social and emotional difficulties.

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, ANDREW POLLAK, was the agent, servant

and employee of the defendant GROVE SCHOOL and was acting within the scope of his

employment.


2/14

2

4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, ROBERT BURGETT was the agent,

servant and employee of the defendant GROVE SCHOOL and was acting within the scope of

his employment.

5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SEAN KURSAWE was the agent, servant

and employee of the defendant GROVE SCHOOL and was acting within the scope of his

employment.

6. Prior to August, 2008, the plaintiff had been diagnosed with a number of

psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, attention

deficit disorder, and had been hospitalized on at least three occasions for treatment of his

mental illnesses and related behavioral problems. He had expressed suicidal ideas on more

than one occasion. He had not attended school since February, 2008. The plaintiff was

taking a number of prescribed medications for his psychiatric illnesses.

7. Prior to August 20, 2008, the plaintiff applied for admission to the Grove School.

As part of the application process, the plaintiff and his parents submitted a written application

and provided the Grove School with psychiatric and hospital records documenting the

plaintiffs psychiatric impairments and behavioral problems.

8. After reviewing the plaintiffs medical, hospital, psychiatric and other records, the

Grove School determined that the plaintiff was appropriate for admission to its program, and

that it could adequately and safely provide for the plaintiffs educational and psychiatric needs.


3/14

3

9. On or about August 20, 2008, the defendant notified the plaintiff and his parents

that the plaintiff had been admitted to the school for the 2008-09 school year with a start date

of September 11, 2008. As a condition of admission, the plaintiff and his parents were

required to make a commitment for a minimum of 24 months.

10. The plaintiff and his parents agreed to the terms of admission offered by the

Grove School.

11. The tuition charged by the Grove School to the plaintiff and his parents was

$7800.00 per month.

12. Prior to September 11, 2008, the East Greenwich, Rhode Island, Board of

Education agreed to pay for the educational component of the tuition and fees charged by the

Grove School, and the plaintiffs parents agreed to pay for the remainder of the fees and

expenses for his attendance.

13. On or about September 11, 2008, the plaintiff was admitted to the Grove School

and began participating in its mental health and educational programs.

14. During the first ten days of his attendance and residence at the Grove School,

the plaintiff had nine altercations with students and staff, and was observed by employees of

the school engaging in all of the following behaviors: threatening to kill himself and run away

from school; telling staff he was stressed and overwhelmed, cutting his arms, calling his


4/14

4

mother and threatening to kill himself if she did not come and remove him from the school and

talking about leaving the school if he had to repeat the tenth grade.

15. On September 21, 2008, ANDREW POLLAK was the Associate Director of the

behavioral management program at the Grove School.

16. On September 21, 2008, SEAN KURSAWE was the Assistant Principal of the

Gove School.

17. On September 21, 2008, ROBERT BURGETT was a teacher and Residential

Administrator at the Grove School.

18. When the plaintiff was admitted to the Grove School, a New Admission form

was completed which included an Intake Summary, Reason for Admission, Previous

Diagnoses, Medications and other information. The New Admission form also included a

section entitled Special Procedures that included the following: Needs space to

decompress and very fragile. According to the New Admission form, copies were provided

to KURSAWE and BURGETT but not to POLLAK.

19. During the afternoon of September 21, 2008, a Sunday, the plaintiff became

agitated and began calling his parents, asking them to pick him up. He refused to go to dinner.

20. KURSAWE went to the plaintiffs residence, the Green Cottage, because the

plaintiff was using the telephone without permission. He observed the plaintiff packing his


5/14

5

clothes and saying he was going to leave the school. He also heard the plaintiff tell his mother

that he was going to kill himself if she did not come and pick him up.

21. KURSAWE told the plaintiff that he would call the police if the plaintiff left, which

increased the plaintiffs agitation. The plaintiff then left his room and went into a bathroom,

where he was able to lock himself inside, and continued to make phone calls to his parents.

22. BURGETT, who was also working that evening, demanded that the plaintiff give

him the cell phone.

23. At that time, the defendant had no trained security staff on the premises.

24. BURGETT and/or KURSAWE then called POLLAK, and reported that the

plaintiff was using another students cell phone to make calls to his parents.

25. At that time, POLLAK was the on call administrator and agreed to come to the

school.

26. When POLLAK arrived at the school, he was not provided with any of the

documentation possessed by the Grove School about the plaintiffs specific psychiatric

diagnoses, behavioral history or the special procedures that were set forth in the plaintiffs

New Admission report.

27. However, POLLAK was asked to make an assessment of the plaintiffs risk for

suicide.


6/14

6

28. When POLLAK arrived, the plaintiff was still in the bathroom. BURGETT told the

plaintiff that POLLAK was going to assess him for suicidality. The plaintiff then walked out of

the bathroom, cursed at POLLAK, went into his room and closed the door.

29. Rather than familiarizing himself with the plaintiffs psychiatric and behavioral

history and specific treatment needs, POLLAK immediately began to forcibly open the door to

the plaintiffs room. A physical confrontation ensued, in which both the plaintiff and POLLAK

sustained injuries.

30. POLLAK, BURGETT and KURSAWE participated in assaulting and restraining

the plaintiff.

31. As a direct result of the actions of POLLAK, BURGETT and KURSAWE, the

plaintiff sustained a black eye, broken blood vessels in his right eye, a bloody nose, and

bruises to his cheek, face and arms.

32. At the direction of POLLAK, BURGETT or KURSAWE then called the Madison

Police Department and reported that the plaintiff had assaulted POLLAK.

33. Officers of the Madison Police Department responded to the Grove School and

arrested the plaintiff, charging him with assault in the third degree. The plaintiff was then

transported to Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital by the police officers.

34. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the defendant had a duty to provide the

plaintiff with an appropriate and safe therapeutic residential treatment program.


7/14

7

35. The defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff in one or more of the following

ways:

A. The defendant failed to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees with

respect to proper and appropriate Crisis Prevention Intervention techniques;

B. The defendant failed to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees with

respect to the proper procedures for restraining individuals who pose a danger to

themselves or others;

C. The defendant failed to properly train and/or supervise its employees to

recognize that the plaintiffs behavior during the incident was a manifestation of

his underlying mental illness and should be addressed as a mental health

problem;

D. The defendant failed to provide appropriate and adequate supervision of the

plaintiff immediately prior to the intervention by POLLAK that resulted in plaintiffs

injuries;

E. The defendant failed to properly supervise the employees who were directly

responsible for the plaintiffs care immediately prior to the intervention by

POLLAK that resulted in plaintiffs injuries;

F. The defendant failed to ensure that employees who were interacting with the

plaintiff on September 21, 2008, including POLLAK, were made aware of the


8/14

8

plaintiffs psychiatric diagnoses and prior behavioral problems and the Special

Procedures that were required in his New Admission Report;

G. The defendant failed to ensure that POLLAK , the on call administrator, had an

up-to-date certification in Non-Violent Crisis Intervention;

H. Prior to the time of the intervention by POLLAK that resulted in the plaintiffs

injuries, KURSAWE and/or BURGETT failed to defuse and de-escalate the

situation with the plaintiff in accordance with accepted Non-Violent Crisis

Intervention techniques and standards;

I. During the entire incident on September 21, 2008, the defendants employees

failed to follow the defendants written Crisis Intervention Policy;

J. BURGETT and/or KURSAWE failed to properly advise POLLAK of the plaintiffs

psychiatric diagnoses and specific behavioral issues and the Special Procedures

that were mandated by the New Admission report;

K. Defendant failed to hire and employ security staff with specific training in Crisis

Intervention techniques and standards.

36. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the defendant,

as described herein, the plaintiff suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, including

lacerations and bruises to his face, broken blood vessels in his eye, a bloody nose, bruises to


9/14

9

his body, Post-Traumatic Stress disorder, fear and anxiety, all of which have required the

plaintiff to undergo treatment, all to his economic loss.

SECOND COUNT (CUTPA VIOLATIONS)

1. - 33. Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the First Count are realleged and incorporated

here as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the Second Count.

34. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the defendant advertised and held itself

out to the public as a therapeutic boarding school that was able to competently and safely

address the educational, mental health and behavioral needs of adolescents with social and

emotional difficulties.

35. As a therapeutic boarding school, the defendant is required to follow accepted

practices for safe and non-violent Crisis Intervention, including restraint when necessary.

36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the defendant was engaged in commerce,

as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a, et seq. (hereinafter CUTPA).

37. The defendants representations that it was able to provide safe and competent

residential treatment services to adolescents suffering from psychiatric and behavioral

problems, including appropriate and safe Crisis Intervention, were false and deceptive, in that

it failed to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees in the proper procedures for

dealing with combative and/or agitated students, and that its employees lacked proper training

in Crisis Intervention and restraint procedures.


10/14

10

38. The defendants false and misleading representations constitute deceptive

practices, as defined by CUTPA.

39. As a direct result of the defendants unfair and deceptive practices, as described

herein, the plaintiff has suffered economic losses, including the cost of treatment for his

physical and psychological injuries, and the costs of hiring an attorney to represent him after

he was arrested on September 21, 2008.

THIRD COUNT (BREACH OF CONTRACT)

1. - 33. Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the First Count are realleged and incorporated here

as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the Third Count.

34. On or after August 20, 2008, the defendant entered into an agreement with the

plaintiff and the plaintiffs parents, that the defendant would provide residential educational

and psychiatric services to the plaintiff, at a cost of $7,800.00 per month.

35. As part of its agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to follow

accepted standards and practices for non-violent Crisis Intervention.

36. As described herein, the defendant breached its agreement with the plaintiff.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants breach of contract, as

described herein, the plaintiff has suffered physical injuries, emotional injuries and economic

losses.


11/14

11

THE PLAINTIFF,

BY _________________________DIANE POLANLaw Offices of Attorney Diane Polan, LLC129 Church Street, Suite 802New Haven, CT 06510Telephone: 203-865-5000Facsimile: 203-865-2177

E-mail: [email protected] No. 100889His Attorney


12/14

12

RETURN DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2010 : SUPERIOR COURT: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN

JOHN DOE, :Plaintiff, : AT NEW HAVEN

::

VS. ::

GROVE SCHOOL, INC. :Defendant : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

FIRST COUNT

1. Compensatory damages;

2. Costs of this action;

3. Such other and further relief as this Court determines to be fair and equitable.

SECOND COUNT


2. Punitive damages;


4. Attorney Fees;



13/14

13

THIRD COUNT




THE PLAINTIFF,

BY _________________________DIANE POLANLaw Offices of Attorney Diane Polan, LLC129 Church Street, Suite 802New Haven, CT 06510Telephone: 203-865-5000Facsimile: 203-865-2177E-mail: [email protected]

Juris No. 100889His Attorney


14/14

14

Documents

John Doe vs. Grove School