Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => News Items => Topic started by: hurrikayne on September 06, 2008, 04:30:22 PM
-
State revokes licenses of Putnam mental-health facility
Lower Hudson Journal news, NY - Sep 4, 2008
SOUTHEAST - The state Office of Mental Health has revoked the operating licenses of a private mental-health facility that treats young adults at two residential centers in Southeast, ruling that the facility failed to correct repeated violations and that its owner and clinical director lied at an administrative hearing.
The ruling against SLS Residential Inc., a for-profit company, was issued Aug. 29. It revokes three operating certificates that SLS uses to run the treatment centers at two stately homes on North Brewster Road and off Putnam Avenue.
"SLS lacks the requisite character and competence to operate a program licensed by OMH," the ruling said.
It was sent to Alfred Bergman, chief executive officer of SLS, and Joseph Santoro, a psychologist who is its chief operating officer. They did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.
SLS received the letter Tuesday and has 10 days from then to request an administrative hearing before the OMH to appeal the revocations. As of yesterday, SLS had not requested a hearing.
"It should be noted that OMH has worked assiduously in an attempt to assist SLS programs in achieving regulatory compliance by providing continuous feedback and technical assistance, but at this time OMH has no alternative but to revoke the above-referenced operating certificates," Joan M. Halpin of OMH wrote in the ruling.
OMH spokeswoman Jill Daniels said the agency rarely revokes operating certificates.
"It's not unprecedented, but it doesn't happen all that often," she said.
The ruling is the latest blow against SLS, also known as Supervised LifeStyles Inc., which operates out of offices in a plaza at Route 6 and Drewville Road.
The Office of Mental Health fined SLS $80,000 in November 2006 for eight violations that inspectors found during unannounced visits to the residential centers. A return visit Nov. 28, 2006, resulted in $30,000 more in fines for additional violations.
Among the violations state inspectors alleged were that SLS used illegal restraints on its patients long after it was told not to, that it administered sedatives to patients when they refused to take their medications and over their objections, and then hid the practice from the state, and that it failed to report troubling incidents to the state, including patients behaving suicidally and complaining of abuse by staff members.
SLS hired one of the nation's largest law firms, Proskauer Rose, and fought the findings in a hearing that began in July 2007 and continued over 20 days through September 2007. Most such hearings last a week or less.
When state OMH Commissioner Michael F. Hogan in July adopted the hearing officer's decision to uphold the fines, SLS appealed in court. That case is pending.
Reasons cited for the revocations include that SLS continues to use physical restraints on patients and that SLS officials either misled or lied to state officials.
"SLS owner, Dr. Joseph Santoro, and its clinical director, Dr. Shawn Pritchard, testified falsely in several instances at the administrative hearing," Halpin, a registered nurse, wrote in her ruling.
Santoro testified that an SLS patient, Evan Marshall, was not receiving services from SLS in August 2006 while on a weekend pass to his mother's Long Island home. During that visit, Marshall killed one of his mother's Glen Cove neighbors and drove around with the woman's severed head. Marshall, 32, is serving 29 years to life.
"Dr. Santoro testified that (Marshall) was not receiving licensed services from SLS at the time he committed a homicide, yet documents show that he was, in fact, receiving services from the SLS clinic until the time he was discharged because he was jailed for the homicide," the ruling said.
The state also determined that Santoro ordered SLS workers to shred internal documents after OMH inspectors reviewed the documents and found several violations. The ruling also says Santoro testified that patients who wanted to leave SLS were not held against their will.
"OMH staff have continued to receive phone calls from former SLS residents who allege that they were required to stay at SLS even after asking to leave," the ruling said.
If SLS does not appeal the ruling, the OMH decision will be considered final and SLS will have to surrender its operating certificates. The state would give SLS three months to transfer its clients to other facilities.
The violations for which the state fined SLS are similar to complaints that two New Jersey residents and former SLS patients made in a $225 million federal class-action lawsuit filed last year against various companies affiliated with SLS. Nicholas J. Romano and Deborah A. Morgan, both in their 20s, allege they were physically and emotionally abused while patients there. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Michael Sussman of Goshen, is pending in federal court in White Plains. Sussman could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Glen Feinberg, a Pleasantville lawyer who went to court to win the right to protest outside SLS sites over the poor treatment he thought his son got there in 2001 and 2002, said he was ecstatic with the OMH decision.
"It's a tremendous relief to know that the years of abuse at SLS is coming to an end," Feinberg said. "OMH has worked patiently with SLS to bring them into compliance with the law and basic human decency, and SLS has proven it is not capable of either. I commend the OMH for its diligence and hard work. I only hope that the Office of the [Professions], which regulates the licenses of people who run and work at SLS, take this report as seriously as the OMH has."
http://http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080905/NEWS01/809050412/-1/newsfront
-
This is astounding. This program was operating right under my nose almost literally. I had no idea it even existed. Talk about a "media blackout" - this isn't even a blip on the radar.
On the flip side, I'm glad they're being shut down. I can only hope that prosecutions are pursued for the false ststements to investigators and that the principals get what's coming to them.
I'm just really, really surprised that in a populated, wealthy area like this (Putnam county is sandwiched between Westchester Co, NY and Fairfiled Co, CT)these scumbags were able to fly under the radar for so long. Usually the "not in my backyard" well-to-do locals would stop this kind of private prison in its tracks. I suppose they misled the planning board as well.
-
None of this is new, I have bit my tongue long enough. We have worked with them for several years and it pisses me off that SLS was allowed to use ERP therapy as a treatment for drug and alcohol addiction for this length of time in light of the continuous problems. Santoro wrote a book “Kill the craving” I think it was called, in 2001. They subsequently produced an outcome study which basically showed there was no evidence that ERP was effective and even went as far as to suggest that a controlled study should be done? This indicates to all of us that the outcome study was “retrospective” and/or “uncontrolled” (basically garbage). Santoro had 7 years to produce results and all he could conclude is that it “Appears” to work? And less than 20 people in the world are trained in ERP in 7 years (almost all of them SLS employees) and still holds onto the thought that ERP is a breakthrough treatment and recognized world wide. People that write a book and base their life and careers on that same book should not be given unharnessed control over outcome studies and administration control over treatment. There should be independent agencies/people to oversee and help balance the perspective.
Santoro and Bergman are professionals that should know better than to lie to the state board in an attempt to cover for a faulty treatment and going against direct orders of the OMH. I know the revocation of their license goes way beyond just the use of ERP, but practices like these give the entire industry a bad name.
They deserve what they get.
...
-
We have worked with them for several years
Who is "We", mister "just a parent"?
-
We have worked with them for several years
Who is "We", mister "just a parent"?
Yes, just a parent. About a third the way down the article it says:
"It should be noted that OMH has worked assiduously in an attempt to assist SLS programs in achieving regulatory compliance by providing continuous feedback and technical assistance, but at this time OMH has no alternative but to revoke the above-referenced operating certificates," Joan M. Halpin of OMH wrote in the ruling.
We being, us, the people, the state etc. Here are some other uses:
The editorial we: in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as we when giving their opinions.
scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we:
By adding three and five, we obtain eight
The patronizing we is sometimes used in addressing instead of "you". A doctor may ask a patient: And how are we feeling today?
We mean to stop your evil plans!
Etc.
...
-
Using the royal "we" is a stupid troll trick used to imply the troll is the voice of many, you are a singular oddity. "WE ARE LEGION', blah, blah, blah. He's the voice of the industry. The who has always used the same explanation for his troll "we". The simple truth is that the who is a pathetic shill and a vacant cunt.
-
Using the royal "we" is a stupid troll trick used to imply the troll is the voice of many, you are a singular oddity. "WE ARE LEGION', blah, blah, blah. He's the voice of the industry. The who has always used the same explanation for his troll "we". The simple truth is that the who is a pathetic shill and a vacant cunt.
Boo Hoo Hoo, someone disagrees with me so they must be a troll or work for the industry. I was forced to stay in my room and study until my grades improved and eat healthy food, exercise, couldnt drink or do drugs for a whole year, the staff didnt even let me order out for pizza!! How abusive. None of this was my fault, it was all my parents. I swear, they are lousy parents, who cares that my brothers and sisters turned out fine, went to college, they were just lucky and succeeded in spite of my parents lack of skills. Why should my parents interfere if I wanted to drop out of school at 14 and sit around doing drugs all day watching tv or stay out all night when I felt like it. Its my life isnt it? I can throw it away if I want and live on assistence the rest of my life. Smarten up people, drop out of school, blame your parents and any schools you went to for your screwed up life. Get on federal assistence, screw up somemore and then blame the system and get yourself a section 8 status which will bring you more cash. Life doesnt get much better!! Work the system brother.
-
Using the royal "we" is a stupid troll trick used to imply the troll is the voice of many, you are a singular oddity. "WE ARE LEGION', blah, blah, blah. He's the voice of the industry. The who has always used the same explanation for his troll "we". The simple truth is that the who is a pathetic shill and a vacant cunt.
Boo Hoo Hoo, someone disagrees with me so they must be a troll or work for the industry. I was forced to stay in my room and study until my grades improved and eat healthy food, exercise, couldnt drink or do drugs for a whole year, the staff didnt even let me order out for pizza!! How abusive. None of this was my fault, it was all my parents. I swear, they are lousy parents, who cares that my brothers and sisters turned out fine, went to college, they were just lucky and succeeded in spite of my parents lack of skills. Why should my parents interfere if I wanted to drop out of school at 14 and sit around doing drugs all day watching tv or stay out all night when I felt like it. Its my life isnt it? I can throw it away if I want and live on assistence the rest of my life. Smarten up people, drop out of school, blame your parents and any schools you went to for your screwed up life. Get on federal assistence, screw up somemore and then blame the system and get yourself a section 8 status which will bring you more cash. Life doesnt get much better!! Work the system brother.
We think you're a douche nozzle.
Is grape your favorite KoolAid flavor?
-
Reprehensible Actions
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? ... /newsfront (http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/OPINION/807120329/-1/newsfront)
SLS Residential Inc., which runs residential treatment centers for young adults with psychiatric problems, operates two facilities in well-manicured, stately old Victorian homes in Brewster. From the outside, SLS properties look as if they belong to the ideal neighbor, but whatever went on behind those crisp facades is starting to sound like a Stephen King novel.
It was bad enough when SLS was accused of violating their patients' rights in a variety of demeaning ways, from using illegal restraints and physical holds, opening personal packages, conducting body and room searches, and forcing patients to submit urine samples while a staff member watched. This humiliating list of findings against SLS was upheld in June by the state commissioner of the Office of Mental Health, who heard an appeal of the charges and ordered the company to pay $110,000.
Advertisement
But now a federal court judge in White Plains, hearing testimony in pre-trial hearings for a separate $225 million class-action suit brought against SLS by former patients, says that the for-profit health-care company did something unthinkable. Some therapists from SLS called their former patients and their families, and tried to prevent them from joining the lawsuit, according to the court. The therapists - whom the patients presumably turned to in their weakest moments, revealing their intimate thoughts and feelings - threatened that if the patients joined the suit against SLS, their medical records, including their troubled mental-health histories, would be made public in open court.
Such coercion is beyond unethical for therapists who, after all, are duty-bound to protect their patients, not their employers. It is manipulative, cynical and downright predatory.
As Journal News staff writer Terence Corcoran reported Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Robinson said that no medical histories would be discussed in the trial, which was brought by two patients who chose to identify themselves, and many unnamed patients. "I have no doubt that inappropriate action took place here,'' the judge said, before demanding that SLS produce a list of every patient and family member called, as well as the names of those who made the calls and those who ordered the calls to be made.
If the tale unfolding in federal court now turns out to be half as bad as it sounds at this juncture, the Office of Mental Health should revoke SLS' license to operate. If found culpable, individuals working for SLS should be severely sanctioned. Any licensed therapists, psychologists, social workers or medical personnel found to have participated in the scheme should be investigated by the state Education Department, which licenses them.
"Federal Judge Blasts Putnam treatment Facility"
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? ... /newsfront (http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/NEWS01/807090370/-1/newsfront)
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.
Advertisement
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.
Actual Revocation Order:
http://www.heal-online.org/slsshutdown.pdf (http://www.heal-online.org/slsshutdown.pdf)
-
This matter has received a dozen front page articles since the beginning and has not been a media blackout. As for these anonymous posters above me - this is what former SLS patients had to deal with by staff. Antagonistic and abusive. Good riddance to all of you people who abuse the weak and vulnerable.
-
The ERP therapy that SLS tried to market for years is actually responsible for the relapse of many SLS patients. One thing that has not been mentioned often enough is that SLS Clinical Director Shawn Prichard had a program called the "mediation program" that was used for patients moving to the final phase of the program. It was a signed contract between Prichard, Deletis (the ERP creator) and the stating SLS would permit them to use their drug of choice if they fulfilled each weekly obligation (work/school, budget, groups, etc).
This tactic was employed to allow these patients - who are about to finally get back out to the community - to relapse and "need" SLS services and ERP ALL OVER AGAIN. Can we say terrible money making practice?
-
This is astounding. This program was operating right under my nose almost literally. I had no idea it even existed. Talk about a "media blackout" - this isn't even a blip on the radar.
On the flip side, I'm glad they're being shut down. I can only hope that prosecutions are pursued for the false ststements to investigators and that the principals get what's coming to them.
I'm just really, really surprised that in a populated, wealthy area like this (Putnam county is sandwiched between Westchester Co, NY and Fairfiled Co, CT)these scumbags were able to fly under the radar for so long. Usually the "not in my backyard" well-to-do locals would stop this kind of private prison in its tracks. I suppose they misled the planning board as well.
LoHud has been pretty good about reporting on this place, but the readership is mostly Putnam and Westchester counties, not national.
People also do not know how to categorize this place. Client population is both adolescent and young adult. People more focused on adolescent concerns think it should/will be taken care of by those overseeing adult facilities. Likewise the other way around. In fact, a comment to that effect was even posted when this place was first aired as a thread subject on fornits last September:
SLS in Brewster, NY?
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=23220 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=23220)[/list]
HEAL has known about them for awhile, and has them described on the same page as Benchmark (http://http://www.heal-online.org/adult.htm).
They were mentioned in this thread:
CARF/PFC/STRAIGHT Connections...
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24413 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24413)[/list]
Due to the lack of traffic on the New Info Forum, I had started a thread in the TTI, mostly based on the blog that Say-It-Ain't-So-Joe runs (http://http://aboutsls.blogspot.com/), but that was lost with the March-May-June DB loss we suffered earlier this year.
The only other thread (than the current one) subsequent to that DB wipeout is the other one Hurrikayne posted recently:
Federal judge blasts Putnam treatment facility
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=25598 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=25598)[/list]
-
Thanks for the info, Ursus. The "LoHud" must have a tiny readership because I have lived here almost my whole life and never heard of it. It has got to be smaller than the Poughkeepsie Journal which is a relatively small paper that covers most of the lower Hudson Valley.
Anyway, I'm glad that the information is public and I am outraged over the conduct of SLS and sincerely hope the principals will get what's rightfully coming to them.
-
LoHud stands for the Lower Hudson region of the New York Journal Times (Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties). I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that the major venue of access is via the internet, and not via paper or subscription access. It has a forum attached, and some of the readership can get quite involved "discussing" the news.
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage (http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage)
I think that region "hides" facilities/programs quite well as long as they are small enough. You've probably driven right past SLS if you were ever in Brewster, and didn't even know it. It is housed in a small number of Victorian houses that are an integral part of that landscape.
Two other programs in that general area are Green Chimneys (special needs and special behaviors) and New Hope Manor (adolescent girls on the wayward path), although the latter may well no longer be in existence.
-
Their is also another program that is the exact same type of format as SLS called Search For Change. They have the same types of OMH licensing as SLS yet they have no problem staying within compliance of the laws and treating patients appropriately. SLS even sells it's Sigmund software to Search For Change so you have to wonder why they haven't sat down with the owners of that facility and asked how they can treat people without violating civil rights or using abusive practices.
-
SLS was just sanctioned by the Federal Judge in the lawsuit for $35,000 for it's gross and deliberate abuse of the legal system. More to come...
-
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson issued a decision today, in which he stated that “the Court finds that the Defendants have engaged in abusive, deliberate and improper conduct . . . by communicating false and misleading information to the putative class members and their parents and families, in a concerted effort to scare them into opting out of the lawsuit.”
Judge Robinson fined SLS $35,000, voided the opt-outs and ordered that SLS may not communicate with class members about the lawsuit.
The Court made the following findings:
A number of former patients complained that SLS therapists called them and stated that if they did not opt out of the lawsuit, their records would be publicized.
Barbara Claire of Connecticut Department of Children and Families, which had no prior involvement with the lawsuit, said in an e-mail that Al Bergman called several DCF employees and asked them to sign opt out notices on behalf of class members receiving services at DCF. Anne Louise Blanchard, an attorney with Connecticut Legal Services, received a call from Bergman in which he falsely stated that “a federal judge had ordered that all of their clients’ psychiatric records be made public.” (4).
The defendants contacted 80 class members or their families. “Virtually all of those calls were made by SLS therapists, including Defendant Prichard.” (5) 37 of the 67 class members who opted out had been contacted by SLS.
“Counsel for the Defendants informed the Court that, prior to any telephone calls . . . they had issued a memorandum to the Defendants advising them not to have any contact with any prospective class member, and that, if such contact should occur, the Court may impose sanctions.” (5).
SLS therapist Dr. Mark Lombardo testified that “he attended a meeting that Defendant Dr. Shawn Prichard called amongst the therapists” (5) and that Prichard gave the therapists a list of former patients to contact. Dr. Lombardo told the class members or families on his list that the class members’ records would be made public if the member participated in the lawsuit.”(6)
“Defendants have ignored the advice and counsel of their attorneys, improperly communicated with putative class members [and] severely abused the judicial processes …. Defendants related false and misleading information to putative class members.” (9)
“The Defendants developed and executed a plan . . . to coerce putative class members to opt out of the class. In bad faith, they provided class members with patently false and misleading information about what this Court has done, what the Court will do and what will come to pass during the litigation of this case. Needless to say, there has been no order by the Court that all psychiatric records be made public, nor will there be; nor was there any basis from which to tell members of the class that should they remain in the class, their medical histories and records would be publicized.” (9).
“But Defendants . . . also contacted institutions that are involved with treating potential plaintiffs, seeking to convince them to sign opt outs on behalf of the potential class members and misinforming those institutions about what this Court has and has not done. As the Defendants well know, these institutions have no authority to sign opt out notices on behalf of their clients. Yet the Defendants were willing to interfere in another institution’s relationship with that institution’s clients- essentially, seeing to use those other institutions as proxies for their scheme.” (10)
This was “a scheme designed and implemented by the very highest managers at SLS.” (10).
“In an effort to exert the most effective influence over the plaintiffs, the Defendants strategized that each former patient’s therapist – the one in the greatest position of trust, influence, and authority- would be the one to place the call.” (10).
“It is beyond dispute that they intended to interfere with class members’ decisions regarding whether to participate in this lawsuit by painting a terrorizing picture of what such participation would entail.” (11)
“The fact that the Defendants and specifically the therapists making the phone calls were mental health care providers to these individuals makes Plaintiffs more susceptible to their influence and increases the potential for coercion. Defendants exploited this sensitive relationship . . . . Under the guise of looking out for their former patients’ well-being, the Defendants developed and implemented a scheme designed to cause them distress all in order to serve their own ends of limiting potential liability.” (11-12).
“Moreover, the fact that the Defendants deliberately distressed those former patients, whose mental health they claimed to be concerned about . . . to serve their own means- all the while under the guise of seeking to protect those patients- is seriously disturbing.” (12-13).
“Defendants sought to capitalize on the potential plaintiffs’ vulnerability and discourage them from participating in the lawsuit. This conduct is astounding to the court. The degree to which the Defendants successfully sought to interfere with the system of justice, diminish Plaintiffs’ confidence in class counsel, and undermine the authority of this Court is difficult to overstate.” (13).
“To the extent that the Defendants were in a position of power and trust over the potential plaintiffs, the Defendants in bad faith took advantage of that position to manipulate the potential plaintiffs, this litigation, counsel, and the Court. This type of egregious conduct may not be tolerated.” (15)
-
By Terence Corcoran
The Journal News • September 15, 2008
SOUTHEAST - The co-owner of a private mental-health facility that has been fined by the state and faces revocation of its operating licenses for allegedly violating laws and failing to correct those violations is defending his company.
Dr. Joseph Santoro said the company had not been given a fair hearing and that it was being fined for violating at least one law that is murky at best.
Advertisement
The state Office of Mental Health recently notified Santoro and Alfred Bergman, co-owners of the for-profit SLS Residential Inc., that it was revoking three licenses the company uses to run two residential treatment centers in the town of Southeast. The facilities treat adolescents and young adults with emotional and psychological issues.
The revocations, which will be stayed until SLS appeals in court, follow $110,000 in fines that the OMH levied in 2006 for the violations. SLS is appealing the fines in state Supreme Court in Putnam County, where Justice Andrew O'Rourke recently issued a stay until Sept. 26 so SLS can file a specific action challenging the state's rulings.
In a interview Friday, Santoro, vice president of SLS, said his company was appealing for several reasons.
"Number one, the evidence they (OMH officials) presented was largely hearsay," Santoro said. "Some of it you could consider rumor and gossip."
Santoro said SLS was not given a fair hearing by the OMH and would be vindicated in court. "(OMH) chose the hearing officer, paid for his services, and were kind of in bed with him," he said. "It wasn't an impartial hearing."
Jill Daniels, spokeswoman for OMH, defended the hearing.
"The Office of Mental Health has a process in place which ensures the independence and objectivity of a hearing officer," she wrote in an e-mail Friday. "As such, the hearing officer selected for the recent SLS hearing was chosen by someone who is not in any way involved in the oversight of SLS or its operation."
The OMH initially fined SLS, also known as Supervised Lifestyles, $80,000 in November 2006 for eight violations that inspectors found during unannounced visits to the residential centers on North Brewster Road and off Putnam Avenue. Inspectors returned later that month, finding more violations for which SLS was fined $30,000 more.
Among the alleged violations were that SLS restrained patients and prevented them from having contact with family members.
"The issue here is that there are real fundamental regulatory problems that OMH has been reluctant to address," Santoro said. "What is restraint as defined in laws and regulations? The definition in law of restraint is the use of an apparatus to immobilize someone. SLS has never restrained through the use of apparatus; therefore, we have never restrained based on the definition of law."
Daniels said the OMH was specific in its directions to SLS.
"Both the Office of Mental Health and the Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities have given SLS very clear direction on the definition of and policy around restraint since the issue first came up in 2005," she wrote.
Santoro said SLS patients - called members - are young adults with serious issues, sometimes worsened by substance abuse.
"These are members with serious problems and emotional distress who sometimes try to hurt themselves physically to distract from the emotional pain. The staff has to intervene and may hold on to them to stop them from hurting themselves or to break up a fight. A restraint may last a few seconds up to 10 minutes," Santoro said.
He said patients weren't allowed to roam unsupervised off-site for fear that some who abuse substances may chose to do that while taking prescription medicine and could end up hospitalized. Certain members are not allowed to call their families because they will only get into fights, he said.
He said SLS has clients from all over the country, some of whom pay out of pocket, and that clients have included family members of prominent people. He also said they have people whose insurance covers the cost and that some patients are sent there by other states, including Connecticut.
"The families and the insurance companies wouldn't tolerate sub-standard care and neither would we," he said.
Santoro said SLS was surprised at the license revocations.
"On their last site visit in May, they said there were no significant problems. Then all of a sudden - boom! - we don't like what you've done. I truly believe there was a relationship" between the revocation and SLS appealing the fines in court, he said.
Again, Daniels rejected this argument.
"The findings of the OMH visit this past May are incorporated in the letter from OMH to SLS, dated Aug. 29. The revocation of SLS operating certificates is in no way retaliatory for their exercising their rights to challenge the fines in court."
Other allegations by the OMH include that Santoro and staff lied to the OMH that a patient, Evan Marshall, was not receiving SLS services when he went home on a weekend pass and killed his mother's Long Island neighbor. Marshall, 32, is serving 29 years to life.
Santoro said they never testified that Marshall was not an SLS patient at the time, only that he was in a different program.
Although money spent on legal fees could have gone toward the $110,000 fines, Santoro said it was about "principle."
"It affects the welfare and safety of patients throughout the entire state. OMH has an obligation to define its regulations," he said.
He also noted that SLS has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, a private, not-for-profit organization that has established standards of quality.
Glen Feinberg, a Pleasantville lawyer who went to court to win the right to protest outside SLS sites over the poor treatment he thought his son got there in 2001 and 2002, said Santoro's statements appeared to refute testimony at the OMH hearing.
"There was nothing ambiguous in the fact that OMH ordered SLS to stop restraining patients. SLS repeatedly promised to stop and then continued doing the things that OMH told them were specifically illegal," Feinberg said.
SLS is also the plaintiff in a multimillion-dollar federal class-action lawsuit by two ex-patients who allege that SLS violated their rights.
http://http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080915/NEWS01/809150351/-1/newsfront
-
Reprehensible Actions
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? ... /newsfront (http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/OPINION/807120329/-1/newsfront)
SLS Residential Inc., which runs residential treatment centers for young adults with psychiatric problems, operates two facilities in well-manicured, stately old Victorian homes in Brewster. From the outside, SLS properties look as if they belong to the ideal neighbor, but whatever went on behind those crisp facades is starting to sound like a Stephen King novel.
It was bad enough when SLS was accused of violating their patients' rights in a variety of demeaning ways, from using illegal restraints and physical holds, opening personal packages, conducting body and room searches, and forcing patients to submit urine samples while a staff member watched. This humiliating list of findings against SLS was upheld in June by the state commissioner of the Office of Mental Health, who heard an appeal of the charges and ordered the company to pay $110,000.
Advertisement
But now a federal court judge in White Plains, hearing testimony in pre-trial hearings for a separate $225 million class-action suit brought against SLS by former patients, says that the for-profit health-care company did something unthinkable. Some therapists from SLS called their former patients and their families, and tried to prevent them from joining the lawsuit, according to the court. The therapists - whom the patients presumably turned to in their weakest moments, revealing their intimate thoughts and feelings - threatened that if the patients joined the suit against SLS, their medical records, including their troubled mental-health histories, would be made public in open court.
Such coercion is beyond unethical for therapists who, after all, are duty-bound to protect their patients, not their employers. It is manipulative, cynical and downright predatory.
As Journal News staff writer Terence Corcoran reported Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Robinson said that no medical histories would be discussed in the trial, which was brought by two patients who chose to identify themselves, and many unnamed patients. "I have no doubt that inappropriate action took place here,'' the judge said, before demanding that SLS produce a list of every patient and family member called, as well as the names of those who made the calls and those who ordered the calls to be made.
If the tale unfolding in federal court now turns out to be half as bad as it sounds at this juncture, the Office of Mental Health should revoke SLS' license to operate. If found culpable, individuals working for SLS should be severely sanctioned. Any licensed therapists, psychologists, social workers or medical personnel found to have participated in the scheme should be investigated by the state Education Department, which licenses them.
"Federal Judge Blasts Putnam treatment Facility"
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? ... /newsfront (http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/NEWS01/807090370/-1/newsfront)
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.
Advertisement
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.
Actual Revocation Order:
http://www.heal-online.org/slsshutdown.pdf (http://www.heal-online.org/slsshutdown.pdf)
All that SLS is accused of was done to me by Desisto, all the time. It's odd that what is a crime in N.Y is not in Mass. They are both liberal, progressive states with similar population demographics. On the other hand, what was done to me in Florida should come as a shock to only the most naive
-
These people are animals and need to be put behind bars before they push another patient to self destruct or rip another family apart all in the name of profit.
-
The Journal News
Appeals court restores $100G in fines against SLS mental health firm (http://http://www.lohud.com/article/20091122/NEWS01/911220356/Appeals-court-restores--100G-in-fines-against-SLS-mental-health-firm)
By Terence Corcoran • [email protected] • November 22, 2009
The state Appellate Division has overturned most of a lower court's 2008 ruling that supported a private, for-profit mental health facility accused of violating patients' rights.
The Appellate Division ruled mostly for the state Office of Mental Health in its three-year battle with SLS Residential Inc., which treats adolescents and young adults with behavioral and psychological issues at two residential facilities and an outpatient facility in Southeast.
State mental health officials fined SLS $110,000 and have moved to close SLS by revoking its operating permits.
The four-judge panel upheld $100,000 of those fines, finding "substantial evidence in the record" to support them, but rescinded a $10,000 fine that OMH levied against SLS for the alleged illegal use of manual restraints on its clients.
The court found that OMH was trying to change state law by redefining the meaning of "restraint" to include manual restraints and that it violated the state Constitution because it failed to notify licensed facilities of its restraint policy. The court also found no evidence that SLS?used restraints.
"The Appellate Division's decision ... is a tremendous victory for SLS," Joseph Santoro, co-chairman of SLS, wrote in an e-mail. "As you know our basic position on restraint is that OMH cannot legislate. The Court found that OMH violated New York Constitution by failing to promulgate official rules and regulations. This is the essence of our dispute with OMH and therefore it vindicates our position."
But spokeswoman Jill Daniels said the state agency "is pleased that the court ruled in OMH's favor on all issues but one" and said the agency has introduced legislation to clarify the definition of the term "restraint" to include "physical, mechanical, or pharmacological measures used to restrict movement."
Santoro said SLS was disappointed that the rest of the court's ruling went against it but that SLS will appeal to a higher court.
The saga began in November 2006 when OMH inspectors visited the two residential treatment centers in Southeast run by SLS, also known as Supervised LifeStyles Inc., and fined the company $80,000 on violations that included illegally restraining residents, limiting their contact with people outside the facility, including family, violating their privacy by watching them as they provided a urine sample for drug tests and unfairly punishing residents.
OMH moved to rescind the operating permits for SLS, which appealed the ruling and fines in a hearing before the state agency. A hearing officer ruled in favor of OMH, and the agency's commissioner, Michael F. Hogan, upheld the ruling.
SLS then appealed to the state Supreme Court. In December 2008, Justice Andrew P. O'Rourke ruled in favor of SLS, finding that OMH's actions were "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and wholly unsupported by substantial evidence."
O'Rourke's ruling, which also vacated the $110,000 in fines, let SLS maintain its operations while the state went to the Appellate Division, which largely overturned O'Rourke Nov. 10.
Daniels said the agency now will move forward to revoke SLS's permits.
Glen Feinberg, a Pleasantville resident who says his son received abusive treatment while a patient at SLS and who has been a vocal critic, called the ruling "a resounding victory" for OMH and urged the state Office of the Professions to "take action against the SLS psychologists responsible for this lawlessness."
Copyright ©2009
-
COMMENTS (http://http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20091122/NEWS01/911220356/Appeals-court-restores-100G-in-fines-against-SLS-mental-health-firm) for the above article, "Appeals court restores $100G in fines against SLS mental health firm (http://http://www.lohud.com/article/20091122/NEWS01/911220356/Appeals-court-restores-100G-in-fines-against-SLS-mental-health-firm)" (The Journal News; Nov 22, 2009):
AMAZEDONE wrote: 11/22/2009 7:22:13 AM
Thank God someone is finally doing something about these people. Years ago they had (at least one) of their Psychiatrists terminated for "inappropirate" contact with a patient. And he had his licence revoked. Also, I know that there is a social worker there who sleeps during sessions with clients, nice huh?
O'Rourke should have investigated some of the background of this company before making his decision so arbitrarily..He's a great guy too, it's not like him.. he must know somebody big at SLS?!
I think that they are a modern day sanitorium! How horrible!
followtheleader1 wrote: 11/22/2009 7:55:58 AM
Someone should look into the Political Donations made by SLS over the past 5 years. You will see they made big dontaions to Sheriff Don Smith...
arpadthemagyar wrote: 11/22/2009 9:22:48 AM
Feinberg is just looking to grow himself thru the courthouse. This is total BS.
imawatchin wrote: 11/22/2009 10:57:40 AM
"Thank God someone is finally doing something about these people. Years ago they had (at least one) of their Psychiatrists terminated for "inappropirate" contact with a patient. And he had his licence revoked. Also, I know that there is a social worker there who sleeps during sessions with clients, nice huh?
O'Rourke should have investigated some of the background of this company before making his decision so arbitrarily..He's a great guy too, it's not like him.. he must know somebody big at SLS?!
I think that they are a modern day sanitorium! How horrible!"[/list]
A judge doesn't investigate litigants before him. He is a judge, not a prosecutor or investigator. The litigants present their arguments to him and he decides based on the LAW, not his own private investigation. Civics 101. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, but to insinuate that he is on the take is outragious. You should be ashamed of yourself. Bad, bad, bad.[/list]
Litchfield wrote: 11/22/2009 6:56:10 PM
SLS loses on 9 of 10 counts and claims victory. Right.
The $100,000 in fines from OMH is in addition to the $30,000 SLS was fined by Judge Robinson for contacting and lying to former patients who are potential plaintifs in a class action suit. In addition to facing the prospect of having its license revoked, SLS still faces the class action suit and a suit from the family of a woman who was murdered by an SLS patient.
SLS can't survive too many more "victories" like this.
slsisevil wrote: 11/27/2009 2:09:09 AM
To the blogger Imawatchin,actually amazedone is right. O'rourke certainly appears to be on the take. O'rourke didn't even write a decision as to why he was overturning it. He wrote one small paragraph,he didn't look at any evidence at all. Everyone knows O'rourke was in SLS's pocket. In fact, O'rourke has had all of his decisions in favor of SlS overturned. There are a few of them. SLS went to O'rourke after O'rourke had already been overturned like 3 times with his favors for sls to ask him again for help,and he finally refused because he didnt want to look like he was in SlS's pocket,which he is. I am not suggesting that O'rourke was taking money from SlS,but he's friends with the owners,thats why he gave a decision that WASNT BASED ON LAW IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT. EVERY JUDGE WHO'S LOOKED AT ANY CASE INVOLVING SLS BESIDES O'ROURKE HAS ALWAYS RULED AGAINST SLS,AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE.
slsisevil wrote: 11/27/2009 2:15:46 AM
Let's make something perfectly clear here. There is a mistake in this article. The court did not,they did not find no evidence of restraints. They found plenty,plenty,endless evidence of restraints. The appellate court vacated OMH's finding of restraints because OMH fined SlS under the wrong legal code. It was a technicality. SLS won 1 out of 10 on a technicality. The court did not vindicate SlS's ridiculous position that it has the right to assault its members. Seriously. People are constantly beaten and physically assaulted and tortured severely at sls,and sls claims they have the right to do that.
Copyright ©2009
-
It is long past time Green Chimneys had its license revoked and Samuel B. Ross Jr. brought up on child abuse charges.
I was one of countless kids who were battered there. Dr. Samuel B. Ross has rightfully been described as a very cruel and dangerous man.
This RTC in Brewster NY is nothing more than an abuse mill. Two rapists who were also serial killers, Philip Zagarella and Eric Napoletano spent years in Green Chimneys in the 1970s. Richard Pienciak wrote a book about Eric Napoletano, Green Chimneys student in "Mama's Boy: The True Story of a Serial Killer & His Mother."
There are Green Chimneys survivor sites on Facebook; Twitter and other sites.
Here are some relevant links:
http://www.pcnr.com/news/2001-05-30/Gen ... s/037.html (http://www.pcnr.com/news/2001-05-30/General_Stories/037.html)
http://victims4justice.org/ (http://victims4justice.org/)
http://www.reddit.com/r/troubledteens/s ... n+chimneys (http://www.reddit.com/r/troubledteens/search?q=green+chimneys)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWUCw5LsQNY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWUCw5LsQNY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7g0oiJ52Gw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7g0oiJ52Gw)
-
Fwiw... a thread on this program in the FQA forum:
- Green Chimneys is Green Hell
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=37861 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=37861)
-
Green Chimneys, Maltreatment Center has turned out people like Eric Lau:
http://courts.lohudblogs.com/tag/eric-lau/ (http://courts.lohudblogs.com/tag/eric-lau/)
http://www.lohud.com/article/20110811/N ... -September (http://www.lohud.com/article/20110811/NEWS03/108110385/Eric-Lau-murder-trial-set-September)
Eric Lau is a living demo of just how helpful being locked away in David Hall, the Green Chimneys hospital really was!