Childrens facility does not have to pay damages - restraint
Page 1 of 1 [ 1 post ]
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
26 May 2018, 8:01 am
Jury votes in favor of Children's Care in prone restraint lawsuit
Quote:
A children's hospital and school accused by a Sioux Falls family of improperly restraining an autistic student was found not to have been negligent in its care and did not cause the student lasting emotional distress, a jury ruled Friday.
The jury ruled in favor of Children's Care Hospital and School Friday afternoon after a four-hour long deliberation over 25,000 documents and three weeks' worth of testimony about the facility's use of prone restraints on a full-time resident in 2010.
Neil and Debbie Graff were suing Children's Care Hospital and School for damages they claim the facility caused their son Ben while he was a full-time resident there for about seven months in 2010. Ben, now 24, was diagnosed with global developmental delays and autism at a young age, and was receiving scholarly and skills-development help as a resident at Children's Care, now known as LifeScape after merging with South Dakota Achieve in 2014.
The jury in its ruling said Children's Care was not negligent, did not cause emotional distress and didn't intentionally inflict injury on resident Ben Graff during his time there.
The Graffs in the suit claimed staff used a prone restraint on Ben more than 130 times from March to September 2010, sometimes multiple times per day or for hours at a time. A prone restraint involves bringing a person to the floor face-down and holding that person's arms and legs until they calm down.
The suit also claimed Children's Care staff didn't follow restraint policy and didn't adequately inform the Graffs of prone restraint use. Children's Care's restraint policy required a nurse to supervise every restraint and for a nurse to check the student who was restrained within an hour of the restraint. Attorneys for the Graff family showed the jury a few examples when those elements weren't met, and the defense often came back with reasons why, but admitted it did violate the policy. Sometimes a nurse wouldn't do a check on Ben until a few minutes after the policy's hour mark.
The policy also required a mat be used every time a prone restraint occurred. Neil Graff testified he witnessed at least one occasion where his son was in a restraint without a mat. Employees of Children's Care testified they would not perform a restraint without a mat.
They acknowledged Ben had "behaviors," but said they and public school teachers had been able to find techniques to calm down Ben, Neil testified. Ben attended public elementary and middle school and students were accepting of him and often sought him out in the hallway to give high-fives, he said. He moved to school at Children's Care after attempts at public high school were unsuccessful.
The jury ruled in favor of Children's Care Hospital and School Friday afternoon after a four-hour long deliberation over 25,000 documents and three weeks' worth of testimony about the facility's use of prone restraints on a full-time resident in 2010.
Neil and Debbie Graff were suing Children's Care Hospital and School for damages they claim the facility caused their son Ben while he was a full-time resident there for about seven months in 2010. Ben, now 24, was diagnosed with global developmental delays and autism at a young age, and was receiving scholarly and skills-development help as a resident at Children's Care, now known as LifeScape after merging with South Dakota Achieve in 2014.
The jury in its ruling said Children's Care was not negligent, did not cause emotional distress and didn't intentionally inflict injury on resident Ben Graff during his time there.
The Graffs in the suit claimed staff used a prone restraint on Ben more than 130 times from March to September 2010, sometimes multiple times per day or for hours at a time. A prone restraint involves bringing a person to the floor face-down and holding that person's arms and legs until they calm down.
The suit also claimed Children's Care staff didn't follow restraint policy and didn't adequately inform the Graffs of prone restraint use. Children's Care's restraint policy required a nurse to supervise every restraint and for a nurse to check the student who was restrained within an hour of the restraint. Attorneys for the Graff family showed the jury a few examples when those elements weren't met, and the defense often came back with reasons why, but admitted it did violate the policy. Sometimes a nurse wouldn't do a check on Ben until a few minutes after the policy's hour mark.
The policy also required a mat be used every time a prone restraint occurred. Neil Graff testified he witnessed at least one occasion where his son was in a restraint without a mat. Employees of Children's Care testified they would not perform a restraint without a mat.
They acknowledged Ben had "behaviors," but said they and public school teachers had been able to find techniques to calm down Ben, Neil testified. Ben attended public elementary and middle school and students were accepting of him and often sought him out in the hallway to give high-fives, he said. He moved to school at Children's Care after attempts at public high school were unsuccessful.
Not enough information here for me to make a judgement. Was the childs behavoirs a danger to himself or others or was it a matter the behavoirs annoying the staff? What were the techniques that were supposidly working at the public school? I say supposedly because if he was doing so well why was he transferred to the facility to become a full time resident? The facility is a combination special school and hospital. This is not good.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
