CHICAGO — A federal judge has refused to dismiss the Cook County Public Guardian’s class action lawsuit targeting a scandal-plagued psychiatric hospital over the alleged mistreatment of young patients in the state's care.
Public Guardian Charles Golbert filed the suit as a representative of seven children placed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in Aurora Chicago Lakeshore Hospital between 2017 and 2018. Named defendants include Lakeshore, its parent company Signature, company employees and executives as well as several DCFS officers and employees.
Golbert also filed a separate class action against DCFS on behalf of the same kinds of patients, alleging youth patients in the state’s care were detained after being cleared for discharge. That action remains pending in Chicago federal court.
Charles Golbert
| Publicguardian.org
U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland issued several orders March 11 in the case involving Lakeshore, largely rejecting motions to dismiss claims against individual defendants and against Lakeshore.
In summarizing Golbert’s allegations, Rowland explained many Chicago-area hospitals wouldn’t accept DCFS patients because the agency “developed a reputation” for keeping children hospitalized longer than was medically beneficial, and then failing to promptly pay. Lakeshore, “due to its own financial pressures,” admitted those children, but “as a result of Lakeshore’s limited funds and aggressive management by Signature, its children’s psychiatric hospital lacked the proper facilities and staff to safely operate.”
Because DCFS had few options for its wards, Golbert alleged, it worked to discredit or bury allegations that its patients, including those central to the complaint, were then subjected to sexual, physical and emotional abuse. A 2018 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medicare compliance survey accused Lakeshore of violating federal regulations and endangering patient health and safety. The federal government cut off funding, and DCFS removed its wards from Lakeshore custody.
Rowland rejected Singature’s argument it should be dismissed as a defendant, finding that although parent companies are not inherently liable for the conduct of subsidiaries, Golbert sufficiently alleged Singature’s control of hospital operations and policy central to his complaint. Specifically, she said, Golbert said Singature’s cost-cutting directly led to the unsafe conditions which gave rise to the abuse his plaintiffs endured.
“Golbert makes specific allegations as to where corners were cut, emphasizing the refusal to approve working cameras, unsafe limits on the number of staff and insufficient vetting and training of employees,” she wrote. “As pled, Signature is just the sort of parent company that direct participant liability is intended to address.”
Rowland also sided with Golbert’s position that Lakeshore and Signature can be held liable for constitutional violations because the complaint adequately alleges their engagement in state action insofar as Lakeshore performed a public function by “providing medical care to children already in DCFS custody,” which “is a traditionally exclusive state function.”
She further said Golbert’s complaint can survive a motion to dismiss because it adequately alleges the harm stemmed directly from an official policy. The allegations include “a sexual assault by an employee that was covered up by Lakeshore management; an assault by another patient who was inadequately monitored; and sexual harassment by an employee with a criminal record who had not been properly screened before hiring,” Rowland wrote, and include evidence the issues were known as far back as 2011.
Rowland rejected the individual DCFS employees’ argument of immunity under the 11th Amendment, noting the complaint names them in their individual capacities — not their official jobs — for actions taken under color of state law. Should they be found liable at trial, Rowland explained, these defendants would be personally responsible for any damages. She said it is irrelevant that none of the defendants were responsible for placing DCFS wards at Lakeshore.
The judge further noted Golbert isn’t asking the court for an injunction on current or future government action, but recovery for harm incurred during 2017 and 2018. She also said the complaint “alleges specific actions taken by DCFS leadership, by certain supervisors” and by an investigator as part of a scheme to tank investigations of Lakeshore so the facility would remain open and accepting clients such as the plaintiffs.
“Golbert states that the DCFS defendants were actually aware of the sexual, physical and emotional abuse taking place at the hospital and purposefully buried the evidence, resulting in the plaintiffs’ abuse at Lakeshore,” Rowland wrote. “He also claims that the DCFS supervisors and investigators intentionally disobeyed department regulations in order to exonerate Lakeshore. As alleged, these actions were done with actual knowledge of the ongoing abuse and were clearly not the product of professional judgment.”
The DCFS defendants were successful in winning dismissal of an allegation they violated the plaintiffs’ right to court access. Although Golbert alleged the employees destroyed or prevented creation of video evidence of abuse at Lakeshore, the lack of video hasn’t defeated his pursuit of relief, she noted, and dismissed that count without prejudice.
Golbert, on behalf of the patients' class, is represented in the action by attorneys Scott R. Drury, Arthur Loevy, Jon Loevy and Mariah Garcia, of the firm of Loevy & Loevy, of Chicago.
Aurora Chicago Lakeshore, Signature and various other defendants have been represented by attorneys Michael E. Prangle, Sabina Babel, Matthew J. Kaminski and Daria Porta, of the firm of Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, of Chicago; and attorneys Craig C. Martin, Matt D. Basil and Laura L. Norris, of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, of Chicago.