PHILADELPHIA – A former youth client at a behavioral health facility claims they were subjected to sexual abuse from staff members, and has now sued the facility for extensive damages.
K.H. first filed suit in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 20 versus VisionQuest National, Ltd of Tucson, Ariz and Downingtown.
VisionQuest receives its “clients” as part of a referral program where delinquent youths are sent to it in conjunction with a specific program of rehabilitation or treatment, with the facility having numerous facilities statewide and being corporately based in Chester County.
“Plaintiff was court-ordered to reside at VisionQuest. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was a victim of sexual abuse during his time at VisionQuest’s facility by its staff members. Plaintiff was housed for classification and assignment purposes to a specific program for a portion of his commitment to VisionQuest at their Chester County facility, near Embreeville, Pennsylvania,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff avers defendant knew or should have known that its employee(s) had committed acts of abuse upon one or more of the other residents of its facilities prior to the time that plaintiff herein was subjected to the acts of sexual abuse that are the subject of this filing.”
The suit adds that the abuse took place in 2009 and 2010, when the plaintiff was just 17 years old.
“Plaintiff was court-ordered to live at VisionQuest when he was approximately 17 years old during approximately 2009-2010. While residing at defendant’s facility, staff member, Ms. Stacy, sexually assaulted the plaintiff. Ms. Stacy was assigned to supervise plaintiff while he was residing at defendant’s facility, including while plaintiff was within his living unit(s). Ms. Stacy was plaintiff’s counselor,” the suit states.
“Ms. Stacy on numerous occasions called plaintiff into her staff office and would kiss him on the lips while also fondling his genitals both outside of and underneath the plaintiff’s clothing. Ms. Stacy touched plaintiff’s penis and testicles in an identical manner to that previously described on multiple occasions within her office. Plaintiff was injured as a result of Ms. Stacy’s conduct. Specifically, regarding staff member Ms. Stacy, it is averred the physical contact made with plaintiff’s genitals was indecent contact for the purpose of arousing the aforementioned individual.”
The suit continues that the defendant’s staff, supervisors, administrators and employees actively discouraged and prevented disclosure to third-parties about any claims of child abuse against any staff member at any facility operated by the defendant.
Citing the amount of damages in question and the domiciles of the parties, the defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 5 and answered it on Oct. 12, denying the plaintiff’s claims.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. At no time material hereto did answering defendant act in bad faith or wantonly, recklessly, maliciously or with a disregard for plaintiff’s health, safety and welfare. Plaintiff may not have filed this cause of action within the appropriate time provided by the applicable statute of limitations nor provided the required notice to defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of release. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches,” per the defense’s answer and affirmative defenses, in part.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent it may seek punitive damages, violates answering defendant’s rights to procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the answering defendant’s rights to protection from excessive fines as provided for in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Answering defendant did not breach any duty owed to plaintiff. If plaintiff has suffered any injury, which answering defendant denies, then this injury was caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff and not by the acts and/or omissions of answering defendant. Answering defendant did not act negligently, grossly negligently, recklessly, willfully or intentionally commit any wrongful acts causing injury or damage to the plaintiff, and, in the absence of such conduct, there can be no liability on the part of this answering defendant to the plaintiff in this case.”
For counts of negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention and respondeat superior liability, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory, special, exemplary and punitive damages in excess of the arbitration limits, plus costs and interest.
The plaintiff is represented by David Wesley Cornish of Cornerstone Legal Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by J.D. Feenane and Gerald J. Valentini of Deasey Mahoney Valentini, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-03956
Chester County Court of Common Pleas case 2022-05570
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com