PITTSBURGH – A Verona woman whose son was murdered by a Pittsburgh-area man, a one-time college classmate previously diagnosed with severe psychiatric illness and violent impulses, is opposing a protective order pertaining to psychiatric treatment records filed by his parents.
Lee T. Rouse of Verona first filed suit in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 14 versus Adam Rosenberg of Fox Chapel (and now residing in Pittsburgh).
Plaintiff Rouse acts as the Executrix of the Estate of the decedent, her late son Christian Moore-Rouse, also known as Christian C. Moore-Rouse.
“Christian Moore-Rouse was 22 years old when he was killed. Christian had previously attended the Community College of Allegheny County, where he met defendant, a fellow student who cultivated a friendship with Christian,” the suit said.
“On Dec. 21, 2019, defendant invited Christian to his Fox Chapel residence and intentionally shot Christian, killing him, while they were on the premises.”
The suit explained Rosenberg had been diagnosed with severe psychiatric illness resulting in prolonged inpatient and outpatient treatment – and despite the advice of physicians to take medication to control his symptoms, which included a desire to murder those emotionally close to him – Rosenberg allegedly failed to do so, leading those symptoms to worsen and eventually murder Moore-Rouse.
“After defendant killed Christian, defendant pulled Christian’s pants down to his ankles, and otherwise intentionally and/or wantonly disturbed, mishandled and/or defiled Christian’s corpse. Defendant then moved Christian’s dead body from his residence’s grounds to a wooded area, across the street from defendant’s residence, and left it there,” according to the lawsuit.
“As a result, Christian’s body was not found until police investigating his disappearance found the body’s skeletal remains while searching for it on March 3, 2020. As a result, plaintiff experienced the natural fear and severe emotional distress a mother emotionally close to her young adult son would experience between Dec. 21, 2019 and the time the police informed her of their discovery of Christian’s remains.”
UPDATE
In response to a motion for a protective order brought by Rosenberg’s parents, Howard Rosenberg and Kim Rosenberg, Rouse’s counsel filed a brief opposing such a move.
“Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg’s motion seeks to prevent them from disclosing the content of records of defendant's psychiatric and/or psychological treatment, implying that Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg are in possession of such records. Neither the statutory Section 5944 privilege nor the privilege outlined in 50 P.S. Section 7111 support their position,” the brief stated, in part.
“If defendant was released from inpatient psychiatric treatments based upon a promise by Mr. and/or Mrs. Rosenberg that they would ensure that their son continued with necessary outpatient treatment in order to control his dangerous impulses, defendant’s treatment records are relevant to a potential cause of action against them.”
Plaintiff counsel added he intends to see if the psychiatric treatment records “contain any specific threats by defendant against Christian or the readily-identifiable class of persons to whom he belonged, for which there is liability under Pennsylvania law for the failure of the treater to warn of the threat that is subsequently carried out.”
“It is reasonably assumed that Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg hired and are paying the criminal defense lawyers for their youthful community college student son. Although they are not the client of those attorneys in the criminal proceedings, the focus of the motion suggests that they may have received copies of the psychiatric treatment records that the criminal defense attorneys provided to their psychiatric expert in that case,” the brief stated.
“Whether Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg obtained copies of their son’s psychiatric and/or psychological treatment records from their son, by their son’s consent to the doctors, by treaters or institutions releasing his records to them, or if they reviewed the records that their son's attorneys have provided to their expert witness in the criminal proceedings, Defendant did not assert and/or has waived the privilege his parents are attempting to assert on his behalf, and the content of the records is discoverable.”
The brief finds “it is necessary to move forward promptly with the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg, to leave adequate time for amendment of the complaint, if appropriate”, and for the Court to deny the motion for protective order filed by Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg.
For counts of survival, wrongful death and unlawful removal of a deceased body causing emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the arbitration limits of the jurisdiction.
The plaintiff is represented by Mark J. Homyak of Homyak Law Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-007929
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com