Federal Judge Allows Abuse Claims To Proceed Against Behavioral Health Organization Deveraux

“Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, 1291 Stanley Rd NW, Kennesaw, Georgia Credit: Google”

Sexually abused at Deveraux?

“The decision rendered in this case is a very positive sign.  Institutions, such as this, have for a very long time been evading justice and hiding behind lame defenses.
We have been very successful at Edelstein Law giving our clients a VOICE in the Courtroom and or resolving these claims through mediation.”

- Jay L. Edelstein

Article below:

"There is nothing abstract about the harm of being confined to an institutional environment with allegedly deficient hiring, retention, supervision, and incident response policies—policies that have, according to the [first amended complaint], caused plaintiffs to suffer repeated incidents of abuse and that by all accounts remain in place,” U.S. District Judge Anita Brody wrote.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has rejected a behavioral health facility’s motion to dismiss a putative class action over reported abuse throughout its facilities.

In a Jan. 12 opinion, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected an argument by the Devereux Foundation and its staffing subsidiary QualityHealth Staffing that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not “actual or imminent” but rather “conjectural or hypothetical.”

The case, Roe v. The Devereux Foundation, will now proceed to discovery.

The ruling comes as lawsuits nationwide pile up against the Devereux Foundation, a behavioral health organization, over reported abuse throughout its facilities, with scores of suits filed across state and federal courts.

In Roe, Devereux had argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims of abuse at its facilities, but Brody disagreed, finding that the claims satisfied all three elements laid out in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.

In Lujan, the justices ruled that, in order to establish standing “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

Brody said the plaintiffs met the constitutional minimum for the first element because the plaintiffs’ alleged injury relates to their claims that Devereux failed to implement and enforce necessary and appropriate policies and procedures to hire and retain suitable staff, supervise employees and residents, and prevent and properly respond to incidents of abuse.These failures also continue to place plaintiffs at a heightened risk of abuse, Brody said.

Brody said the plaintiffs also showed they suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

“There is nothing abstract about the harm of being confined to an institutional environment with allegedly deficient hiring, retention, supervision, and incident response policies—policies that have, according to the [first amended complaint], caused plaintiffs to suffer repeated incidents of abuse and that by all accounts remain in place,” said Brody. “Because each Devereux resident—including the named plaintiffs—is harmed in his or her own way by the policies alleged in the FAC, and those harms are ‘real and not abstract,’ the alleged injury is concrete and particularized.”

The court also found the plaintiffs met the requirements for alleging an actual or imminent injury in fact, as the plaintiffs are alleging past and ongoing harm, not just hypothetical future harm.

“Whether framed as the ongoing harm of being confined to facilities with policies that fail to prevent or respond to abuse, or the likely future harm of continuing abuse because of these policies, this alleged injury satisfies the actuality or imminence requirement,” Brody said.

Brody also found the risk of future harm to be very likely, reasoning that when a plaintiff is harmed for continuing practices, it is significantly more likely to happen again. That is particularly relevant in this case as numerous plaintiffs still reside in environments with these policies, Brody said.

Brody found that the plaintiffs also met the requirement of causation, as they must establish that the defendant’s actions caused injury, noting that the actions don’t have to be the last step in the chain of causation and can instead, be an indirect, casual relationship, as long as there’s a fairly traceable connection.

According to the court, the plaintiffs met this requirement, living in an environment with policies that expose them to ongoing risk of abuse and cause the injury alleged.

Brody also said the plaintiffs do not need to prove specifically at this stage how every harm experienced by every plaintiff relates to a particular defeat in the system.

And finally, Brody said the plaintiffs met the requirement of showing redressability, saying the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs would, if granted, change the systemic conditions that place them in danger of abuse.

The court also rejected Devereux’s argument that plaintiffs cannot allege a right to relief that is legally unavailable, resulting in the failure to state a claim under Title IX.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, ‘it need not appear that the plaintiff can obtain the particular relief prayed for in the complaint, as long as the district judge can ascertain from what has been alleged that some relief may be granted by the court,‘” Brody said, quoting language from “Federal Practice and Procedure (3rd ed.)” by Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller.

Lastly, Brody denied Devereux’s move to dismiss or strike the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(b)(2) class claims, calling it premature.

“Whether plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23 is typically decided on a motion for class certification,” Brody said, noting that, in general, a court should wait to resolve such a motion until someone has moved for class certification. “This court declines to stray from the general practice in this circuit based on a few short pages of briefing, particularly when the parties vigorously dispute the validity of plaintiffs’ class claims.”

“We are very pleased with today’s order from the Court and are eager to move the case forward,” said the plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Joe Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf, in a press release following the ruling. “We are seeking court approved injunctive relief requiring Devereux to, among other things, implement and enforce policies and practices to prevent future incidents of abuse.”

“The child-victims in this case are extremely gratified by Judge Brody’s clear and powerful opinion confirming their right to stand up and seek changes at Devereux so this kind of abuse can never happen to them—or anyone else—again,” plaintiffs co-counsel Annika K. Martin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in New York said in the release.

Attorney for the defendant, Jeffrey Lutsky of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in Philadelphia, said “Devereux is disappointed in and respectfully disagrees with the court’s ruling.”

“The court’s ruling pertains to preliminary matters only,” Lutsky added. “It makes no findings of fact or ruling on the merits regarding the allegations raised in this litigation. Devereux will continue to defend itself vigorously and looks forward to the opportunity to refute the allegations raised by these plaintiffs. Devereux remains steadfastly committed to the health, safety and welfare of the approximately 25,000 individuals across the country that benefit from its care.”

Source: Law.com at https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2023/01/17/federal-judge-allows-abuse-claims-to-proceed-against-behavioral-health-organization-devereux/