Family of LI Beheading Victim Allowed to Sue Killer's Psychologist & Residential Facility

[hotkarl]

I say stop with all the politically correct nonsense and worrying about hurting everyone's feelings.
Lock 'em up. Kick it old school. Keep the nut bars where they belong, in the looney bin.
Quarantine the sick. And for the love of God outlaw the sale and use of all this anti-bacterial crap.
We're gradually weakening the human immune system with all the germophobe nonsense.
That's why more people are sick more often these days. But that means less money in the pockets of the medical and pharmaceutical companies. Ugh...nevermind. What were we talking about again?

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

I am making no assertion that there are not now or every going be charges brought. I was stating that the family is not allowing/waiting for this to occur, they are ready to sue the psychologist before any criminal action appears to have be processed.

As for the penalty phase my comment meant that there has not been any criminal charges filed so the family (rather than waiting) is initiating a law suit which I believe they would do even if "criminal negligence was established. Either way they are going to pursue monetary compensation in the 7 figure range, I am sure they are not initiating this to raise public awareness.

Well, lo and behold, the State Office of Mental Health DID do something about it 6 years ago.

In 2008, the State revoked the operating license of the facility that was "caring for" Evan Marshall for several violations, including their handling of the Evan Marshall situation. (SLS owner, Dr. Joseph Santoro, actually LIED in court and tried to say Evan Marshall was NOT at their facility when he killed his mother's neighbor, but records showed otherwise!) Suffice it to say, that even Proskauer Rose could not get SLS out of it!

Here's a reprint of an article from the Lower Hudson Journal news, NY on Sept. 4, 2008, reporting on the August 29, 2008 ruling:

State revokes licenses of Putnam mental-health facility | Nunya

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.

As for your assertion that Ms. Fox's family is merely voraciously money-hungry, number one, using this as an example, I might be tempted to believe that it's only for money by the mother of Shannan Gilbert, the Gilgo Beach serial killer victim, as her mother abused and neglected her her whole life and NOW she's concerned the victim is dead and wants lots of money. How has the family of Ms. Fox shown such low character and lack of caring? Also, why is it so impossible that her family is upset that a lunatic killer was put on the loose to prey on the public and want the people responsible for putting the lunatic on the streets held accountable for their actions? Many times new laws come out of lawsuits that do protect the public for the future (Leandra's Law, Megan's Law, etc.) and actually do some good for everyone. How do you know her family does not want a greater good, but only wants monetary gains?

Secondly, it is interesting to note that this did not come out of a vacuum against "poor, picked on SLS," a company with an otherwise "sterling" reputation, as a money gaining scheme. Other patients and their families have complained about, protested against, and sued this facility before. Here's just two of them:

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.

When people sue, it is not always a money grab. Sometimes they actually believe something has to be done to prevent this from happening to someone else in the public, and a lawsuit is a way to initiate changes in law. If this ends up changing laws and perceptions, it will save lives and keep dangerous undesirables safely locked up away from the public. There is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing wrong with Ms. Fox's family receiving compensation if they win the lawsuit. Remember, they will never get HER back.

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

Well, lo and behold, the State Office of Mental Health DID do something about it 6 years ago.

In 2008, the State revoked the operating license of the facility that was "caring for" Evan Marshall for several violations, including their handling of the Evan Marshall situation. (SLS owner, Dr. Joseph Santoro, actually LIED in court and tried to say Evan Marshall was NOT at their facility when he killed his mother's neighbor, but records showed otherwise!) Suffice it to say, that even Proskauer Rose could not get SLS out of it!

Here's a reprint of an article from the Lower Hudson Journal news, NY on Sept. 4, 2008, reporting on the August 29, 2008 ruling:

State revokes licenses of Putnam mental-health facility | Nunya

Thank you, if the Newsweek article had said something to the effect of "the facility and doctor were found negligent in 2008......" They made no mention and I could only form an impression on that.

As for your assertion that Ms. Fox's family is merely voraciously money-hungry, number one, using this as an example, I might be tempted to believe that it's only for money by the mother of Shannan Gilbert, the Gilgo Beach serial killer victim, as her mother abused and neglected her her whole life and NOW she's concerned the victim is dead and wants lots of money. How has the family of Ms. Fox shown such low character and lack of caring? Also, why is it so impossible that her family is upset that a lunatic killer was put on the loose to prey on the public and want the people responsible for putting the lunatic on the streets held accountable for their actions? Many times new laws come out of lawsuits that do protect the public for the future (Leandra's Law, Megan's Law, etc.) and actually do some good for everyone. How do you know her family does not want a greater good, but only wants monetary gains?
.

You elaborate far beyond the general statement I made. Again the News week article made no mention that "the family want to ....." nor did they say what compensation they are seeking.

Secondly, it is interesting to note that this did not come out of a vacuum against "poor, picked on SLS," a company with an otherwise "sterling" reputation, as a money gaining scheme. Other patients and their families have complained about, protested against, and sued this facility before. Here's just two of them:.

Not aware of this nor do I have a comment on it

When people sue, it is not always a money grab. Sometimes they actually believe something has to be done to prevent this from happening to someone else in the public, and a lawsuit is a way to initiate changes in law. If this ends up changing laws and perceptions, it will save lives and keep dangerous undesirables safely locked up away from the public. There is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing wrong with Ms. Fox's family receiving compensation if they win the lawsuit. Remember, they will never get HER back.

Too frequently we see in the media where the outcome in criminal court is not to someone's liking so they sue. Everyone is a victim and everyone wants to be compensated so if this family is not looking for compensation then they may be one of the first.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

Thank you, if the Newsweek article had said something to the effect of "the facility and doctor were found negligent in 2008......" They made no mention and I could only form an impression on that.



You elaborate far beyond the general statement I made. Again the News week article made no mention that "the family want to ....." nor did they say what compensation they are seeking.




Not aware of this nor do I have a comment on it




Too frequently we see in the media where the outcome in criminal court is not to someone's liking so they sue. Everyone is a victim and everyone wants to be compensated so if this family is not looking for compensation then they may be one of the first.

I have a couple of more good ones on this case, but no time, will post it later!

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

I have a couple of more good ones on this case, but no time, will post it later!

Your far more informative that most of the published media....

[I_Love_LI_but]

Did you know that if your child turns out to be a homicidal maniac and you get sued over it, your homeowner's insurance may have to give you money to pay your lawyer to defend yourself?

Neither did I ... but look at this:

Judge OKs grisly insurance payout | New York Post

Damage from fallen trees and broken water pipes, maybe — but homeowners’ insurance that covers murderous decapitation?

A Nassau County judge has ruled that MetLife must pay as much as $300,000 for Jacqueline Marshall to defend herself against a negligence lawsuit filed because her mentally ill son, Evan Marshall, then 31, decapitated and dismembered her neighbor.

I was wondering ... under what basis do you sue a murderer's mother? Do you sue her because if she didn't give birth to the murderer your loved one would still be alive? Wouldn't that be a hoot ... now people can start suing the parents of murderers just for having had the defective psycho of a child! But no, here's why she was named as a Defendant:

The victim’s husband, Jay Fox, and two children filed suit against Jacqueline Marshall in 2008, claiming that she knew of her son’s twisted propensity for violence but failed to warn neighbors that he was home.

First of all, I have to hand it to Jacqueline Marshall's attorney. Who would have thought you could persuade a judge to make a homeowner's insurance policy pay out on a lawsuit about your son being a homicidal maniac? If you read the decision (link below), you can see where the Plaintiff's (insurance company) attorneys made some key mistakes which certainly aided the defense.

I also have to hand it to the Fox's attorney. Seems like a real barracuda who will leave no stone unturned to seek punishment for ANYONE who could conceivably have had something to do with enabling this murder to happen. From the mother not warning people about her psycho son being on the loose, to the institution that gave him a day pass, to the psychologist that treated him, the attorney is not leaving anyone out and instead letting the judge himself decide on the merits of who will be the final defendants in this case.

To the average person, this seems like way too much and a fevered "Lawsuit Lotto" cash grab. But not so fast ... did you know that if you decide to sue because a medication caused you harm, your attorney does not just sue the manufacturer, but also sues each and every physician who prescribed it for you for each and every time, and each and every pharmacist who filled the prescription for you for each and every time? No matter if they didn't know the drug was dangerous, they had a hand in you ingesting it, so they are sued also.

This attorney is using the same methodology in a non-typical case (murder rather than product liability) and the methodology makes sure nobody is left out, so that another defendant cannot complain that others also had culpability who were not named, NOT that the attorney is expecting or dreaming of getting money from everyone and anyone name for their client.

The judge then sorts out the merits of each defendant and makes the final decision on who is going to get sued. Here is a PDF, sorting out the Defendants (including, if you read the caption, "John and Jane Does 1 through 30" ... including as yet unnamed people):

http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/deci...914winslow.pdf

Note that Jacqueline Marshall was spared, as "a parent cannot be held liable for the actions of an emancipated adult child" (which was to be expected).

Here is the judge's decision regarding whether MetLife should pay for Jacqueline Marshall's legal defense:

Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Marshall (2010 NY Slip Op 51149(U))

Here, under the subject policy, occurrences are defined as "an accident." "[A]n incident is an occurrence, i.e., an accident, if from the point of view of the insured . . . [the incident resulting in the injury] was unexpected, unusual and unforeseeable (quotations omitted)." State Farm Fire [*3]and Casualty Company v. Whiting, 53 AD3d 1033 (4th Dept. 2008), quoting Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675, 677 (1976), citing Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 7 NY3d 131, 137-138 (2006); Essex Ins. Co. v. Zwick, 27 AD3d 1092 (4th Dept. 2006). "[i]n deciding whether a loss is the result of an accident, it must be determined, from the point of view of the insured, whether the loss was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen." Agoado Realty Corp. v. United Intern. Ins. Co., 95 NY2d 141, 145 (2000), citing Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., supra, at p. 677 (emphasis supplied).

Since the insured here, the Defendant, MARSHALL, obviously did not expect and could not foresee her son murdering Denise Fox, that act was in fact an "accident" from her point of view. See, RJC Realty Holding Corp. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 2 NY3d 158 (2004). Accordingly, contrary to the Plaintiff's position, its denial of coverage may not be predicated upon a lack of inclusion and absent a proper disclaimer, Marshall's claim is covered under the policy. Village of Brewster v. Virginia Sur. Co., Inc., supra, at p. 1242, citing City of Kingston v. Harco Natl. Ins. Co., supra; Maroney v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., supra.

So, if your kid ever becomes a homicidal maniac who ends up beheading your neighbor, study the above link carefully if you want to make your homeowner's insurance pay out to defend you!

[Quick Commenter]

Originally Posted by Interlude

You can sue anyone for anything, whether you'll win is another story. I don't have Crapday access but from the wording I presume all that happened is the case survived a motion to dismiss made before the parties had done discovery, which is not a hard thing to do if you have any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing (even made up evidence).

Good point. Surviving motion for summary judgement is an entirely different matter-that frquently indicates settlement (if lawsuit survives that motion).

[SilverBulletZ06]

Only if we can sue judges and legistlatures for similar situations. You don't let me carry a pistol to defend myself and my family, we get attacked well then come on down SCPD, NYPD, NYSL, NYS Governor, NYSAG, and the CA2.