SLS Residential Defendants Sanctioned After Threatening Form

[hurrikayne]

Date Published: Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

SLS Residential, LLC, a private mental health facility located in Putnam County, NY, has been sanctioned for threatening former patients who are potential plaintiffs in a class actions lawsuit.  SLS runs two residential treatment centers in the town of Southeast, NY  for adolescents and young adults.  In addition to a class action lawsuit, SLS is facing revocation of its state operating licenses for the two facilities.

The class action lawsuit, filed by two former SLS Residential patients, alleges that they were subjected to physical and mental abuse.  The complaint, which was filed on behalf of all SLS patients, seeks  $75 million in compensatory damages, $150 million in punitive damages and an injunction that would bar SLS from further violating patients’ rights.

The SLS class action lawsuit  alleges that staff illegally employed manual restraints and put patients in isolation rooms where they were physically and emotionally abused, subjected patients to nightly searches of their bodies and rooms, and denied patients the right to refuse treatment, leave the facility or phone family members.  The complaint also charges SLS with discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and claims patients were targeted for mistreatment because they were mentally disabled.

Southern District Judge Stephen Robinson assessed SLS $35,000 in sanctions after he determined that 80 former patients  had been told by SLS therapists that their private medical records would be made public if they became plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. In some cases, the therapists falsely told their former patients that the judge had actually ordered the publication of medical records.

At a hearing held by Judge Robinson on July 8, a therapist who had worked at SLS for two years testified that its Chief Clinical Officer, Dr. Shawn Prichard, had called a meeting to discuss contacting the potential class action lawsuit plaintiffs and their families, and distributed a list of their names and phone numbers.

In addition to using threats to coerce  former patients into opting out of the class action lawsuit,  the callers contacted other institutions where some former SLS patients were being treated and tried to convince personnel at institutions to sign opt outs on their patients’ behalf.

In levying sanctions against SLS, Judge Robinson called the defendant’s conduct “egregious”.   “Under the guise of caring for their former patients, the defendants sought to capitalize on the potential plaintiffs’ vulnerability and discourage them from participating in the lawsuit.” Judge Robinson said. “This conduct is astounding to the court.”

In his decision, the judge held SLS management responsible for the conduct of the therapists.  “These calls were not the result of inadvertence, misplaced good intentions, or even the product of rogue employees who took it upon themselves to manipulate class members,” Judge Robinson said. “Rather, it was a scheme designed and implemented by the very highest managers at SLS who are, not incidentally, named defendants in this lawsuit.”

In addition to the $35,000 Judge Robinson voided all of the opt-outs signed by potential plaintiffs, and ordered corrective notices to be mailed. He also ordered all the defendants to cease contact with the potential plaintiffs.

The class action lawsuit is not the only legal battle that SLS Residential is facing right now.  Last week, SLS filed a lawsuit in the New York state Supreme Court seeking to reverse the revocation of its operating license by the state Office of Mental Health (OMH).  In 2006, OMH fined SLS Residential $110,000 for violations of the state Mental Hygiene Law and ordered that it stop admitting patients - and stop violating the rights of the patients it was treating.  The OMH said SLS Residential routinely restrained clients and kept them from making phone calls. It also found that staff would search patients, their rooms and packages sent to them.

In seeking to revoke its licenses, OMH alleged that SLS used illegal restraints on patients long after being told not to, that it administered sedatives to patients when they refused to take their medications and that it failed to report troubling incidents to the state, including patients behaving suicidally and complaining of abuse by staff.

http://http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3964

[psy]

Well.  SLS just fucked themselves.  They should NOT have messed with potential witnesses/plaintiffs.  It all comes out eventually, and when it does, judges don't look kindly towards it.  I can see the defendant's lawyers being very upset right now with the behavior of their clients.  Having the judge pissed off at you is not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

A federal judge yesterday blasted representatives of a for-profit mental-health company that treats young adults with psychiatric problems at two Putnam County facilities for lobbying former patients to opt out of a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit brought against the company.

U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Robinson in White Plains said the actions by representatives of SLS, which runs two residential treatment centers in Southeast, might be the "most outrageous conduct" he's ever witnessed as a judge.

Therapists from SLS contacted former patients who qualify for the class action and told them that if they didn't opt out, their medical records could be made public and discussed in open court. The patients had been sent a letter by the court, advising them that they needed to respond by next Monday to opt out.

Robinson said there was nothing to indicate that medical records would be revealed or individuals identified during a trial.

Family members of the patients were also called, and, in one case, an SLS representative contacted an attorney with Connecticut Legal Services to urge that clients who were treated at SLS opt out of the action.

"I have no doubt that inappropriate action took place here," Robinson said. "There's no question."

SLS began making the calls after the court sent the letters.

Goshen, N.Y., attorney Michael Sussman filed the class-action lawsuit last year against several companies affiliated with SLS, the principals of those companies and several employees. The defendants include SLS Residential Inc., SLS Health, SLS Wellness, Supervised Lifestyles Inc., Chairmen Alfred Bergman and Joseph Santoro, a psychologist and several SLS employees. The company has its headquarters on Route 6 in Southeast.

Sussman filed the lawsuit on behalf of former SLS patients Nicholas J. Romano and Deborah A. Morgan, both of New Jersey, and many unnamed patients. Romano and Morgan, in their mid-20s, allege that SLS violated their rights and others' rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The lawsuit seeks $75 million in compensatory damages, $150 million in punitive damages and an injunction to bar SLS from further violating patients' rights.

Sussman said he had heard from at least five potential plaintiffs who received calls from SLS.

Mark Lombardo, a psychologist at SLS, which runs residential treatment centers on North Brewster Road and off Putnam Avenue in Southeast, told Robinson that he and other therapists were given a list by a supervisor of patients to call who qualified for the class-action suit and their families.

Lombardo said that none of the therapists had legal training and that no lawyers were present when the supervisor ordered them to make the calls. He said that patients and family members were not told they could possibly benefit from joining the lawsuit. He said people who had problems with SLS were not called.

Robinson ordered SLS attorney Paul Callan of Manhattan to bring a list of every patient and family member SLS contacted, the time of the call, the person who called, and the person who gave the instructions to call. Robinson ordered that all who made the calls appear in court.

He noted that several former patients who had contacted Sussman to complain about the calls were not on the list provided by Callan. He called Callan's responses to his questions "misleading, deceptive and troubling to this court."

Callan took umbrage, saying that no one had questioned his ethics in his 35-year law career.

"Mark the date on your calendar," Robinson responded. "July 8, 2008. Mark it."

Robinson later ordered that new letters be sent to those who opted out, and those who didn't, after Monday's deadline. Those who opted out will also get a letter from SLS in which the company will explain the misinformation it gave patients and families in the phone calls.

In addition, Robinson said he would order SLS to pay any legal fees Sussman incurred in bringing the calls to the court's attention and would consider a financial sanction against SLS and, possibly, Callan's firm, Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan.

Robinson also issued an order barring SLS from discussing the lawsuit with any current or former patients. The parties will return to court July 17.

Allegations in the lawsuit are similar to several violations for which the state Office of Mental Health fined SLS in 2006 after visiting its treatment centers. The state fined SLS $110,000 for eight violations that inspectors found during a visit on Nov. 17, 2006, and for three more violations found during a follow-up visit Nov. 28, 2006. Among the violations were that SLS used illegal restraints on patients and failed to conduct criminal background checks on new employees.

SLS fought the allegations in a hearing in the summer of 2007 before the state Office of Mental Health. A hearing officer found that SLS violated patients' rights on several occasions and broke the law. Then, last month, OMH Commissioner Michael F. Hogan upheld the state hearing officer's findings. However, SLS has yet to pay the fine and can still appeal in court.

[psy]

Oh LOL!  Caught with the pants down.  I love it when that happens to a program!

 :rofl:

[Anonymous]

THESE ARE THE FACTS REGARDING THE STATUS OF SLS HEALTH VS OMH AS OF MARCH 23, 2009:

1.)  On or around December 3rd Justice O'Rourke from the Putnam County
Supreme Court ordered that all fines and also ordered OMH would be barred
from taking further regulatory action against SLS, including the revocation
of SLS licenses.  This was after him supposedly reviewing the over 3,498
pages of evidence in ONE NIGHT.

2.)  On December 10 the NY State Attorney General filed a motion with the
Appellate Division barring enforcement of Justice O'Rourke's order until the
Appellate Division has had an opportunity to review and decide the appeal.
This permitted the OMH Revocation hearing to move forward (and it did start
on Jan 5, 2009).  Also, the Appellate Division only grants orders of this
type when it has serious concerns about the order issued by the lower court.
In this case the fact that all of the evidence could not have been humanly
possible to be reviewed in under 24 hours made Justice O'Rourke's order
appear to be a "favor" to SLS.

3.) On December 23 the Appellate Division acted swiftly and issued an
Emergency Stay of Justice O'Rourke's order.  Justice O'Rourke's order was
stayed, meaning not in effect, on the condition the NY Attorney General
files its appellate brief on or before Jan. 22, 2009.  This means the
Appellate Division is fast-tracking the appeal.

4.) On Jan 19, 2009 the OMH Revocation Hearing started.  SLS made a motion
prior to the OMH Revocation Hearing on Jan 5,2009 to have the administrative
judge recues himself since he oversaw the hearings regarding the fines and
investigations.  The motion was denied.  SLS appealed this decision on Jan
14, 2009 to the OMH Commissioner.  He rejected the appeal.

5.) On Jan 20, 2009 SLS commenced another lawsuit in front of Justice
O'Rourke of Putnam County requesting to overrule the OMH Commissioners
decision to allow the Administrative Judge to not recues himself from the
Revocation Hearing.  Justice O'Rourke DENIED SLS' request.  The NY Attorney
General also filed motion to dismiss SLS lawsuit as well as fil the Appeal
Brief  and the parties were due in court on Feb 10, 2009. The NY State
Attorney General filed the following to the Appellate Court:

". Justice O'Rourke signed the order finding that Prof. Hutter's decision
was not supported by the evidence one day after he received the 3, 498 page
hearing transcript.

. Although SLS complains that OMH relied on hearsay (which is allowed in
administrative hearings) it failed to mention that its expert, Dr. Samenow,
relied on statements made by 14 unidentified SLS patients to him.

. SLS policy allowed restraints, euphemistically called Brief Safety
Interventions, to last up to 45 minutes even though SLS' own expert
testified that they should last no longer than 20 minutes due to the risks
to the patient.

. In 2006, SLS restrained one-fourth of its residents.

. Santoro admitted that SLS would only call a physician "sometimes" after a
patient was restrained; Dr. Stumacher, the in-house physician, testified
that he was not summoned when restraints were used.

. SLS Clinical Director, Shawn Prichard admitted that he would monitor
patients' phone calls to their families when in his opinion, they were lying
about conditions at SLS.

. Among the many incidents that SLS was required to report to OMH- but did
not-were the following: 1. A patient received 12 stitches at the community
hospital after cutting her arm with glass. The hospital concluded she was
suicidal and transferred her to a psych hospital. Betsey Bergman testified
that SLS did not report this to OMH because they did not think the patient
was suicidal. 2. A patient got violent, went to store, called 911 and said
she was going to kill herself. SLS did not report this to OMH because they
felt she was not suicidal.

. Betsey Bergman, who was in charge of Incident Reporting, had never heard
of the regulations on incident reporting and had never conducted a special
investigation into any incident.

. Matt Sena, SLS' Residential Director, did not know what constituted a
reportable incident and was not familiar with the OMH regulations.

. Despite regulations requiring staff to be fingerprinted, 21 employees were
not fingerprinted until months after they were hired. SLS admitted that
these employees had regular and substantial contact with patients. "

6.) Feb 19, 2009 Justice O'Rourke to SLS "The Revocation Hearing will
proceed" and granted OMH' motion to dismiss SLS' lawsuit regarding the
recusal of the OMH Administrative Judge which was simply a delay tactic to
begin with and never had merit.

7.) On Feb 23 it was discovered by Justice O'Rourke (the Judge SLS
continuously lies to people that he supposedly granted them the big
"Victory" of OMH) that SLS no longer had a medical doctor on staff which is
an extremely serious regulatory violation. He also held that SLS improperly
brought the case in Putnam County and ordered the venue changed to Albany
County.  He also stated that SLS is not entitled to any restraining orders
or any injunctions.  After SLS received the order changing venue
and denying their request for an injunction, SLS filed a stipulation
discontinuing the action.  Oddly, they filed it in Putnam and specifically
limited the discontinuance of action in Putnam, even though the case has
been moved to Albany.

8.)  On March 25 SLS and Roman/Morgan start Mediation in result of the
Federal Judge ordering them to do so.

Summary:  SLS lost it's appeal that it has been touting about since Jan.
on two different websites with the sole purpose of misleading former
and current members and the people who pay for treatment.

They have not had any "victory" and in fact are in a worsening situation.
SLS is currently still participating in the OMH Revocation Hearing.

SLS employees including Joseph Santoro and Shawn Prichard were
CAUGHT lying under oath. Al Bergman was caught trying to
convince other programs to sign opt-out notices on behalf of
former members, so as to ensure they never even knew the lawsuit
existed.

Once the class action trial starts the REAL story will come out and
everything discussed so far will be reinforced, proven and finally
the former members can have the closure they deserve.

[Anonymous]

Uh oh! I think SLS is getting shut down with a 90 day notice. WooHoo@! :rasta:

[psy]

Uh oh! I think SLS is getting shut down with a 90 day notice. WooHoo@! :rasta:

Great news!  Source?

[Anonymous]

Awesome. :rasta:

[Ursus]

The article in the OP has also been archived on an attorney website:

SLS Residential Defendants Sanctioned After Threatening Former Patients
Oct 8, 2008 | Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

© 2002-2011 YourLawyer.com®.[/list]

[Ursus]

And here's an earlier article that never made it to a post here, published 'bout two weeks prior to the above article in the OP:

-------------- • -------------- • --------------

The Journal News
SLS fined $35G for misleading ex-patients on lawsuit

Sep. 25, 2008
Written by Timothy O'Connor

A federal judge yesterday fined a Putnam County for-profit mental-health company $35,000 for attempting to scare patients away from a federal class-action lawsuit that accuses the company of mistreating them at its two facilities.

U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Robinson issued a 16-page order that found the company, Supervised Lifestyles Inc., known as SLS, had engaged in "abusive, deliberate, and improper conduct" during the lawsuit's opt-out phase, where former patients decide whether they want to participate in the lawsuit. SLS operates two facilities that treat young adults with psychiatric problems.

The state Office of Mental Health announced this month it intends to revoke SLS's three licenses to run the two Southeast facilities, saying the company had wrongly restrained patients and denied them contact with family members. SLS has said it will fight the revocation.

The findings by the OMH are similar to the allegations raised in the lawsuit filed by two former patients in U.S. District Court in White Plains.

Robinson wrote that SLS had contacted patients and communicated "false and misleading information to the putative plaintiff class members and their parents and families in a concerted effort to scare them into opting out of this lawsuit."

Former patients said that SLS therapists had called them and told them their medical records would be made public by participating in the lawsuit.

Michael Sussman, the lawyer representing the former patients, said Robinson had stepped in to protect the integrity of the legal system.

"SLS class members and I are gratified by this decision and by the clarity the judge has brought to a situation which SLS intentionally tried to muddle," he said. "This example of judicial resolve restores faith for many who have found the legal system unresponsive to their human needs."

But a lawyer representing SLS said the company was considering an appeal of Robinson's order.

"At the hearing before Judge Robinson, SLS representatives stated that their actions in contacting patient family members were motivated solely by concerns relating to the health, welfare and privacy of SLS patients," lawyer Paul Callan said.

Robinson ordered that for the duration of the opt-out period, SLS or its agents no longer can contact former patients about the lawsuit without his permission.

He also voided all previous opt-outs and ordered new notices of the lawsuit be sent to potential class members who opted out "to affirm that decision once the false and misleading information provided by SLS and its employees has been corrected."

Reach Timothy O'Connor at http://www.LoHud.com.[/size]