FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA coum'y ?0339343704. DEC272017 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK EN COURT LBRK JOSHUA A EDWARDS, AS GUARDIAN AD 36 LITE-M AND NEXT FRIEND 0H .D.L., AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. (32016-3377 OKLAHOMA LIMITED ARCADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION: THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. l' ROLLING HILLS LLC, AN ,l Defendants. SECOND AMENDED PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Joshua A. Edwards, as Guardian Ad and Next Friend of J.D.L. an incapacitated adult person, by and through his counsel, William J- Ervin, Jr., and amends his causes of action against. Defendants Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC (?Rolling Hills?), Arcadia Ilealthcare Company, inc. (Arcadia), and the State of Oklahoma, ex Oklahoma Dcpa11?mcnl. of Human Services as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE l) .D.L. was at the time of the actions complained of herein, a disabled minor child, residing in the State of Oklahoma, in the custody of the. Oklahoma Department of Human Services. 2} 1111.. has been adjudicated an incapacitated adult person in Pontotoc COUnty District Court Case No. PG- 17?01 and iscurrently under guardianship. 3) Joshua A. Edwards is Guardian Ad Litem forJ.D.L., duiy appointed by the Court pursuant to 10A 0.5. 1-8-108, in Poutotoc County District Court Case No. and reappointed in Pontotoc County Distn'ct Court Case No. PG-17-01. 4) Defendant Rolling Hills, is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, but is subject to service or process in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5) Defendant Arcadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Rolling Hills, L.L.C., and at all times nelevant to these proceedings Defendant Rolling Hills was under the exclusive direction and control of Defendant Arcadia. 6) Defendant Arcadia is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business in the State of Tennessee. 7) Defendant DHS is an agency of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business is in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, where service may be had upon said Defendant; as a result, this Court maintains jurisdiction over the subject matter and persons involved in this litigation and venue is proper before this Court. 8) Defendant DHS received notice of Plaintiff?s claim, pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental T011 Claims Act, 51 0.8. ?t51 et seq, on February 11,2016. Defendant DHS has now denied Piaintiff?s Claim by operation of Oklahoma Law. 9) This Court hasjurisdiction over the parties herein. and venue is proper. FACTS 10) In September 2005, DHS took custody ol'J .D.L. from his parents, against parental wishes and in an involuntary manner. 1 I) DHS subsequently terminated the parental rights father and mother. tx.) 121 Over 111a m1 nine years, DHS placed 1 1) 1.. npproxvnlafely fo11y-tl11ee(43) (11.11101105ch homes. 13) 011 1.111: <<1.2014 1 was :1 Cypress Adultscenl Gloup Home 1n Ada,0klah01rm. 141 The Cypress Gmup Home was owned and opmxuu by Del'mdams 11011111; Hills and Arcadia. 15) mm: a midcm of Cypress Adolescenl Group was 111 the excluswe legal custody and mm>> of mum under 111s daily suvcmsion' um and cumml of Rullmg H1lls and Arman 15) 1.. Dumber 2014. Rullmg 11.115 and A1cad1a denied 1.91. mm. my medical cm, as 1135111111: rsquired :mergency mrgery and 17) Between November 1.1014111111111y 20111 D.L. was, on "1111111111 occasmns, pl'. and wxunlly umuhed Hume 181 Io (he lime ,mnltedl Defeudmus Hills and had ms nu [Mans by and 0mm ml assauln Defendants Rollmn and Arcadm <>- and Amalia nulmcd As cmployccs 11: 1111110111: mumy and desrroy vidw surveillanu: image 22) Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia also ejected/removed from the premises a DHS caseworker who was making inquiry into the reported assaults. 23) After multiple additional reported sexual assaults, to Defendant Rolling Hills, the City of Ada Police Department. CASA, and to the District COurt of Pontotoc County, Defendant DHS undertook an investigation, which resulted in the removal of all DHS children from the Cypress Adolescent Group Home in July 2015. 24) That the Defendants herein had a duty to protect J.D.L. from known or reasonably foreseeable harms and to provide for his health, welfare, safety, while J.D.L. was in their care and custody. 25) injuries and damages were received while in DHS custody, and, more particularly, in the care and physical custody of Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia. 26) Pursuant to the Orders of the Court appointing him guardian ad litem. Plaintiff claims,on behalfJ.D.L., all actual and exemplary damages allowed by law. (Negligence: Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia) Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-26 above. 28) Defendants, Rolling Hills and Arcadia owned and operated the Cypress Adolescent Group Home where the acts which proximately caused Plaintiffs? injuries took place and had a right of control over the property. 29) Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia had a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect the minor children at the facility from the tortious conduct of persons on the premises, including, but not limited to, residents, visitors, and/or its own employees. 30) Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia are liable for the acts and Omissions of their employees. under the doctrine of .mperi?m: 31) Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia had aclual, llupuled inlet/oi>> knowledge of the risk posed hy and llie lomous Conducl nr-- nil In DVL as a for whom Hills and Awadm neie lespollsablc 32) The oecumnoes mudc basis or this n. and ilie lesulling inginies imd damages, were caused by negllgenl ox conduct ol'Defelldams Hills and Alendin lliese negligence includes. but is not limilcd l0. llic follawmg paniculfirs, caeli of wllicli, lakcn or culleelively. consliinie a and enusc omic injullcS and damages hucin n. Failing ln l, a self: be railing implement plmdules which would plou'cl L: 0. Falling in plopcll)' and adequakcly nloniloi wicncung Willi .l l. null llie on l'unmcm l) ninl oi>> Io lcmoVe--fiflm d, railing exnmise mllinzny we in plated (min a know) danger. by bolh failing to adcqualcly wam of llic knovln risk nl sexual falling In ninke llie lcnsonahly snle and by assigning -- as J.D.L.'s mnmmaw: Falling |0 aduqualcly salt guard J.D.L from an incidcnl or :nvimnmen'. llial Hills and Amalia know Or slinnld lime .ulown was dangelvus; 33) [duh of (MS and am ms. slngulmly or in minbinalion mill alliels commuwd negligence. which pinximnlely calls/ed ncc..vl'EURncc: made bnS|S acnon and Flinllemlme. Defendants Rolling Hills mum am gninlly and scvelally :iable fol llie |onluus unidml ar-- 34] As a dllecl result of Rolling and Alcadia': acts and omissions JDVL. "as emhal'laascd, confused. and suffcled nlenlal anguish. emafional dlshess and injury that with hi: ahilily to carry ou! the day-lo-day lesponsihililles of life, enjoyment of life and the proper and emotional development. Plaintiff hcxcin claims the llems ofspeClfic damages: a. Reasonable and necessaly medical expenscs zeasonably likely 11: incurred in (ht future; h. mm physinnl pain and suflrling, anguish in pzsl' anguish in his (mum; h. I'm-judgment hi the me alluwad by .uw; and Pom-judgment al the highest ml: allowed by law 35) The wrongs done by Defendanls Rolling and Arcadia were aggla\aled by malLCC and reckless disiegani rm which lhe law allows lhe imposillun or damages The conduct of nn unnecessal)' and risk Hi 5: nu: ham [0 Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia Well: actually, was of the risk involved. bul procecded conscious indirl'exennc ind/0i iecklm disregald to lighls, safely, 01 "11(1ch 36) Following Ilie mulliple l'eporls or sexual assault by --, Defendants Rolling Hills and Alcadia undcnook imenuonal and nclinns in deslloy Willem or such nmuhs, and to milk: the subject faciliiy Icss Me. in nn nunmpl [0 kids (he and risk ofhami lo and WHEREFORE, Plainufl m. against Hills and in an amount In excess of for damages, and l'nr and damages Xlgniim such Defendants in all amoum ill of $75,000 00 (u Jenn Sllk'll from committing such reckless and/or malicious acts in the future and to apprise the public at large that society does not condone such acts. (Defendant DHS: Negligence) 37) Plaintiff incorporates the allegations Set fOrth in paragraphs 1 through 36, as if herein fully set forth. 38) Defendant DHS has a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect and provide for the children in its custody. 39) Upon information and belief, Defendant DHS knew or should have known about the dangerous conditions in the Cypress Adolescent Group Home, were aware of vulnerability to such dangers, and increased vulnerability by failing to correct, monitOr, or supervise the dangerous conditions and/or environment. 40) a disabled minor child, was entirely dependent on,and under the c0mplete control of, Defendant DHS, at all times relevant herein. That Defendant DHS made periodic written reports to the juvenile Court in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma regarding J.D.L.'s condition and welfare between June 9, 2014 and July/31,2015. 42) That deSpite actual knowledge of the sexual assaults at the Cypress Adolescent Group Home, and the harm to J.D.L., Defendant DHS actively concealed this information from the juvenile court, and excluded this information from the reports to the court, the attorneys appointed for J.D.L- and others involved in thejuvenile case. 43) Upon information and belief. Defendant DHS with full knowledge of the sexual assaults committed upon .D.L. described herein. engaged in affirmative acts of concealment to exclude SUSpicion, to preclude outside inquiry, and to induce those reSponsible for enforcing the iignis of lo frum investigating, and limely bringing an aclluil against Defendant D115 44) Upon nilnimauon and belief, four (4) mmur male children, including 1.0.1" Wu: stxually manned by-- a: in: Cypress Gmup Home, belweell Airgun 1'20l4and lnly 31,2015 45) Upnll and lrnlinr, Defendant DHS naively or engaged in fraudulem cl collducl respcd |o claims rclaicd Lhel'um and misled. deceived 0| provided false [0 persulls charged wiili 1 DL and his ligllu. 45) Nn leg male, snug uncles! is advanced by me sml: avaiding any potential Ilabilily lhmugii ilueplive acliuns, (miller, lime t'erSlS a slaw inteicsl in rim rewunjing pulenlinlly government avnidillg liabilily in turlv Thai Dufendzull DHS should illu'efum he barred rnun the defense of [he on: (I) year nine liminninn, nnrlui>> ma GTCA. l0 exclud: ssxual amulis upon lDi Illa! occurred ml Dr aricr November Fnlnuary ll,2015. 4x7 Upml informalmn and belief_ Defendmn DHS had zlc|ual knowledge nf [Ilc am of sexual nmnii who lam assaulted Jim".' and failed to nldillaly nr rare in protect [I'lc Insidenls of [ht Adolescent mung Moms in nl--ls L.lroin zswulls 4% Tim the sexual assaullx wcic not known in any person wlmmuirl DJ. 's ion against DHS, and could have been independemiy by such panic: June 23.20l5 50) DHS knew, or lnuc known, of "dentin" Rolling Hills and Aimdin's of nus and of [he dnngemus conditions in in: subject With want of ordinary or slight care to those prevent dangers to health and safety, DHS failed to remedy the dangerous circumstances audior deficiencies in the Cypress Adolescent Group HOme Operated by Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia, putting J.D.L. at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm, and resulting in him being repeatedly sexually assaulted. 51) On information and belief, DHS knew, or should have known, that the acts and omissions of Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia created a danger to health, safety, and well-being, resulting in J.D.L., and others, being repeatedly sexually assaulted. 52) 01-13 failed to take action to ensure reasonable care and safety while in DHS custody. or failed to exercise ordinary or slight care to protect health and safety from known dangers, and further Defendant DHS knew or should have known that the Rolling Hills/Arcadia group home environment was dangerous. While not derelict in its placement of J.D.L-, DHS owed a duty to .D.L. of ordinary care and to take reasonable measures to protect his safety and wellbeing while in DHS custody and in the Cypress Adolescent Group Home. 53) DHS breached their duty to provide for safety and wellbeing, and to correct any dangerous conditions, and such breach was a proximate and direct cause of injury and damages. 54) As a result of acts and Omissions. endured repeated physical and sexual assaults, physical pain, suffering, and mental pain and anguish, while under the custody and control of DHS. 55) While in DHS custody and in residence at the Cypress Adolescent Group Home, J.D.L. was repeatedly sexually assaulted, was repeatedly exposed to neglect-threat of harm, suffered actual physical abuse, suffered substance abuser?over medication, and suffered educational neglect. 56) Defendant DHS failed to provide a safe environment for J.D.L., failed to enforce or follow its own safety policies and procedures, failed to properly educate, train, supervise. or inspect those made responsible for his care, and failed to monitor or protect this minor child in their custody. In so doing, Defendant DHS caused or contributed to the denial or deprivation of basic human rights, and wrongly caused or contributed to serious physical, emotional. and developmental damages to WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant DHS in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for physical pain, suffering, mental pain and anguish, future medical expenses, and any such other and further relief as the Court may, in law or in equity. deem reasonable and proper. (DHS Defendants: Superior via DHS Defendants) 57) Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs through 56 as if fully set forth herein. 58') DHS owed J.D.L. a non-delegablc duty of due care, to take reasonable measures, and to exercise ordinary care to protect safety and well?being while in DHS custody. 59) DHS employees, acting in the scope of their employment, breached their duty, and such breach was a proximate and direct cause of injuries and damages. employees', servants? and agents? acts and omissions were negligent or done with a want of ordinary or slight care. knowing that their conduct or refusal to act would, more likely than not, cause serious injury and harm 60) szendam DHS ls liable for me acts and omissions of 1'8 employees. under dean-inc of I <Defendanm and kmw, or we awam. ma: \llell' failur: aupcrvise lESIdeIIK--was not safe for L., and Lhmugh [ha wall! of slighlesl calaaua lack ofsupervlsion. allowm L. be physically iujuiemud sexually assaulzed 66) Dcfeudalns Rolling Hills and Amadl: breachcd me" duly and such blush was a pmximuu and dincl cause ofJ.D.L.'s Injulias aim damages, 67) Defendants Rolling Hillsand Arcadla ruillm undenook ms mat mad: lh: gxoup hum: its: safe, and luuhai amcks agaiusl Itsidcms. in an anon conceal me am desmbed harem 68] As a cl Rollmg and Arcadia's ans and JILL. physical paiu, pain,auguish,humilluuou.aud :mban'assmenl Pluumn' plays for mum Rolling Hills and Alcadla .u an ammllu in Excess of $75,000 00, lor physical pain, suffering. mural palm and angulah, hurmlialiuu uud emhallassmenl, hum Muslim, plus pl'c and push Judgment iuleiw. and mm, Illcludlng lmsonablc allomeys fccs: and exemplary daiuagas against such Defendants in an amount Ill mass at 575000.00 to deter Dei'eudams from mum. such Masai mallcmus acts in future and [he at ling: mlciely dues um muduuc suuh acls. (Defendants kn|ling Hills And Arcadia) 69) minim the allegations su l'onh Ill paragraphs 1 (is as If muh llereln 70) As uu muy audc. column wuh DIIS. Defendanls Rolling and Amama uwad JD L. a duly of due can and to lake ltasonablc mcasults fol lliS safely, and [hell we 12 Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia breached their duty and such breach was a proximate and direct cause ofJ.D.L.?s injuries and damages. 72) As a result of Defendants? negligence, J.D.L. endured denial of necessary medical treatment, sexual assault, physical pain, suffering, mental pain, anguish, and humiliation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays fOr judgment against Defendants Rolling Hills Hospital, L.L.C. and Arcadia Healthcare Company, Inc. in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for physical pain, suffering, mental pain and anguish, medical expenses. plus pie-judgment and post- judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys fees; and any such other and further relief as the Court may, in law or in equity, deem reasonable and proper. Respectfully Submitted? By: v. ,r .. whit-ant J. gait/1min Ervi =1 Att rneys at Law, L.L..P. PO. 6% I449 McAlcster,OK 74501-1449 (918) 423?4242 (Phone) (918) 4237-4243 (Fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Second Amended Petition was on December 27, 2017 mailed, faxed, hand?delivered, e-mailed to the following: John K. F. Langford Assistant General COunsel Department of Human Services PO. Box 25352 Oklahoma City, OK 73125?0352 Attorney for Defendant ODHS D. Bowen Berry Maiy Anny Walden Mitzy G. Fryer Sheila G. Wilson The Berry Law Firm, 400 N. Walker Avenue, Suite [00 Oklahoma Cityer?Ob f" LC Attorneys for Defendants Rolling Hills and Arcadia . /i 4? ?7?21; ??1sz William enigma, 0% 1683! 1-4