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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
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
1. Compensatory damages;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Costs of this action;
4. Attorney Fees;
5. Such other and further relief as this Court determines to be fair and equitable.
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
13/14
13
THIRD COUNT
1. Compensatory damages;
2. Costs of this action;
3. Such other and further relief as this Court determines to be fair and equitable.
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
8/8/2019 John Doe vs. Grove School
14/14
14