O'Leary v. Sloan
| Decision Date | 14 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 12-2625 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF TARA O'LEARY, deceased, by Eileen Devlin and Coleen Winters, Co-Administratrices ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Tara O'Leary; ESTATE OF LYDIA JOY PERRY, deceased, by Vivian Kale and Janet Fandel, Co-Administratrices ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Lydia Joy Perry, Plaintiffs, v. DEBRA SLOAN, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants and/or The ARC of Hunterdon County; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES-DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; BRIDGET GRIMES, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants; JENNIFER VELEZ, individually, and in her capacity as the Commissioner of the State Department of Human Services; MARION FENWICK, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants; MARGE BRIEGEL, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants and/or the ARC of Hunterdon County; KENNETH RITCHLEY, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants and/or the ARC of Hunterdon County; ROBERT HARBOLD, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants and/or the ARC of Hunterdon County; GERI MOHR, individually, and as agent, servant, and/or employee of the State Defendants and/or the ARC of Hunterdon County; THE ARC OF HUNTERDON COUNTY; JOHN & JANE DOES 1 - 50 (said names fictitious, real name unknown), individually, and as policymakers, management, supervisors, agents, servants, and/or employees of the State Defendants, The ARC of Hunterdon County, or of the ABC CORPS. 1 - 10 (said names fictitious, real names unknown), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants the State of New Jersey, the Department of Human Services-Division of Developmental Disabilities, Jennifer Velez, Marion Fenwick, Marge Briegel, Kenneth Ritchley, and Robert Harbold (collectively, the " ") (ECF. No. 36). Plaintiffs the Estate of Tara O'Leary and the Estate of Lydia Joy Perry (collectively, "Plaintiffs") oppose. (ECF No. 41). Upon consideration of the parties' written submission and oral arguments, the Court will grant the State Defendants' Motion in part and deny it in part.
The present case stems from a tragic sequence of events that befell three women who lived in a Community Care Residence ("CCR") operated by Defendant Debra Sloan ("Sloan"). The three woman were Erin Germaine ("Germaine"), who is not a party to this action, Tara O'Leary ("O'Leary"), and Lydia Joy Perry ("Perry"). . Germaine, who has Cri-du-Chat syndrome and severe mental retardation, had begun living at the Sloan residence at age two and lived there until age thirty. (Id. at ¶ 2; ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 5). O'Leary, who suffered from profound mental retardation, a seizure disorder, and congenital scoliosis, lived at Sloan's residence for approximately twelve years. . Perry, who had cognitive defects in the mild to moderate range, lived with Sloan for approximately eighteen months. . Perry had a developmental age of a six year old child. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 170).
The New Jersey Department of Human Services-Division of Developmental Disabilities (the "DDD"), a Defendant in this case, operates the CCR program, in which private homes are licensed as residences for individuals with developmental disabilities. . These individuals, such as Germaine, O'Leary, and Perry, are placed at CCR homes by the DDD and receive services there. (Id.). Sloan was first licensed to operate a CCR residence in her home in Bloomsbury, New Jersey in 1980. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 3). CCR licensees are expected to provide their residents with their basic needs and to ensure that they receive habilitative services and attend medical appointments. (Id. at ¶ 4). The contract that CCR licensees sign with the DDD permits the DDD to inspect the home monthly, and it requires the licensee to submit a monthly report to the DDD regarding the residents. .
In addition to services provided by the CCR licensee, the DDD provides care to CCR residents through its own employees. A Habilitation Planning Coordinator, also known as a Case Manager, is the DDD employee with the most direct responsibilities to a CCR resident. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 10). Defendant Bridget Grimes ("Grimes") began working for the DDD as a Case Manager in 2001. (Id. at ¶ 9). During the relevant time period, Grimes was assigned thirty-eight clients, three of whom were O'Leary, Perry, and Germaine. (Id. at ¶ 13). A Case Manager is required to visit each CCR licensee's home monthly and to visit each resident in the licensee's home every other month. (Id. at ¶ 10). In connection with these visits, the Case Manager collects the monthly reports of the CCR licensee and submits her ownmonthly reports regarding the CCR residents. . The Case Manager also leads the resident's interdisciplinary team ("IDT"), which creates the resident's Individual Habilitation Plan ("IHP"). (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 14). The IHP is a written document that is prepared annually to outline the services that a CCR resident is to receive, including health care, education, and rehabilitation, and to lay out the resident's habilitative goals and steps to achieve those goals. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 12). The IDT is composed of the assigned Case Manager, the CCR licensee of the home where the resident lives, other representatives of the DDD, representatives of any daycare program that resident attends, and the resident's family members or guardian. (Id. at ¶ 11).
Each resident's IHP is prepared by the Case Manager and reviewed by the Case Manager's supervisor, whose title is Area Supervisor. (Id. at ¶15; ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 14). As an Area Supervisor in Hunterdon County, Defendant Marion Fenwick ("Fenwick") was Grimes' direct supervisor at all relevant times, and, in that capacity, she also oversaw two other Case Managers. . Fenwick's supervisor was Defendant Marge Briegel ("Briegel"), the DDD's Hunterdon County Administrator, who directly oversaw three Area Supervisors, and, indirectly, twenty Case Managers. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 17). Briegel's supervisor was Defendant Robert Harbold ("Harbold"), the DDD's Regional Administrator for Hunterdon, Middlesex, Mercer, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties. (Id. at ¶ 19). Although the chain of command is unclear from the materials currently in the record, above Harbold were Defendant Kenneth Ritchley ("Ritchley"), the Assistant Commissioner of the DDD, and Defendant Jennifer Velez ("Velez"), the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services. (ECF No. 1, Compl., at ¶¶ 13, 16).
Grimes had difficulty with Sloan from the time she began working as a Case Manager, including not being given access to the Sloan residence and not receiving the reports Sloan was supposed to submit. (Id. at ¶¶ 78-79, 81). Fenwick was aware of problems with Sloan as well: she knew before the year 2000 that Sloan sometimes did not send her CCR residents to their daycare programs (id. at ¶ 242); that she would intentionally disregard DDD mail (id. at ¶ 247); that she had become "paranoid" and had developed a "poor attitude" (id. at ¶ 249); that she was both financially strained and willing to flaunt the law, as she had misrepresented to the Hunterdon County Board of Social Services that she did not have heat in her home in order to receive financial assistance (id. at ¶ 246); that she sometimes prevented case managers from having their scheduled meetings with the CCR residents in the CCR residence (id. at ¶ 84); and that she sometimes did not submit monthly reports on her CCR residents as she was required (id. at ¶ 105).
Many CCR residents attend daycare programs where they receive habilitation services. . Per their IHPs, O'Leary and Germaine were supposed to attend the Point Breeze Day Program ("Point Breeze") operated by Defendant the ARC of Hunterdon County (the "ARC"). (Id. at ¶ 32). Perry attended another daycare program. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 24). O'Leary began attending Point Breeze in 2002. . Though her IHPs indicated that she was supposed to attend the Point Breeze program five days a week, her attendance was sporadic from the start and became worse over time. (Id. at ¶ 42). Though their IHPs continued to state that they should attend the Point Breeze program, Sloan did not send O'Leary or Germaine there at all in the eighteen month period leading up to September 9, 2008. (ECF No. 36-2, Def.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 23). Perry, however, did attend her program during this time. .
Grimes became aware of O'Leary's daycare attendance problems in 2005 but did not know of their full extent until September 2008. (Id. at ¶¶ 87, 95). She reported these problems to Fenwick on several occasions. (Id. at ¶¶ 84, 88). Fenwick, in turn, reported O'Leary's lack of attendance at the Point Breeze program to her supervisor Briegel. (Id. at ¶ 111). Despite Fenwick's knowledge that O'Leary was required to attend the Point Breeze program per her IHP, that O'Leary was to receive habilitation services there, and that O'Leary was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial