Family sues Brattleboro Retreat, Northeast Kingdom Human Services for negligence

The family of a St. Johnsbury man who was severely beaten by a former Brattleboro Retreat patient in 2011 is suing the psychiatric hospital for negligence in the patient’s release, court documents show.

Brattleboro Retreat Psychiatric Hospital. Creative Commons photo/Flickr user pag2525

Brattleboro Retreat Psychiatric Hospital. Creative Commons photo/Flickr user pag2525

Northeast Kingdom Human Services, where the patient was a client prior to the attack is named as a codefendant.

Attorneys for the Retreat filed a motion in May to have the case dismissed. Windham County Superior Court Judge John Wesley did not rule on the motion at a hearing Tuesday, instead taking it under advisement.

Rich Cassidy, the family’s attorney, said he expects a ruling soon, possibly as early as Friday.

“From the public’s perspective (this case) presents one overarching interest: do Vermont mental health providers have a legal duty to act reasonably to protect the public from patients who present a risk of harm to third parties,” Cassidy said Wednesday.

But the Retreat’s attorneys argue that Cassidy is trying to make mental health providers liable for patients harming “anyone in the world,” even if its “days, weeks or even years after discharge,” court filings show.

The patient, Evan Rapoza, attacked Michael Kuligoski in March 2011, when Kuligoski, a furnace technician, was working at a property owned by the Rapoza family.

Rapoza, then 21, beat Kuligoski with a wrench, choked him with a belt and then attempted to drown him with no established motive.

Kuligoski’s injuries mean he will need constant medical attention for the rest of his life, according to the complaint.

Rapoza is diagnosed with schizophrenia. In 2010 he spent close to two months as an inpatient at the Brattleboro Retreat. Prior to his admission, Rapoza demonstrated threatening behavior and was hearing voices.

The civil complaint states Rapoza expressed homicidal and suicidal thoughts and exhibited violent behavior while an inpatient. He was placed on antipsychotic and anti-anxiety medications and spent much of his inpatient stay in seclusion with heavy staff supervision.

The day Rapoza was discharged from the Retreat, the treating psychiatrist noted, “his refusal of medications is very worrisome,” and that “he actually seems to have experienced an increase in his voices with only missing one night’s medications.”

His discharge plan from the Retreat involved being seen regularly at Northeast Kingdom Human Services, and he was prescribed daily medication.

Rapoza’s mother told Northeast Kingdom Human Services staff that her son stopped taking his medication again in December 2010. Nobody from the organization reached out to Rapoza between then and March when the attack on Kuligoski took place, according to the complaint.

Doctors found Rapoza to be insane at the time of the attack, and criminal charges were dropped.

Rapoza was placed in state custody and sent back to the Retreat, where he remained until December 2012 when he was improperly transferred without a judge’s order by Department of Mental Health officials to an outpatient mental health facility.

Seven months later, when the transfer garnered media attention, a judge ordered Rapoza transferred to the secure psychiatric facility in Middlesex. Department officials would not confirm if Rapoza is still being treated there.

The complaint alleges that, not only was it negligent to release the patient, but the Retreat also had a duty to warn the patient’s parents that their son was a danger and help them understand his mental illness, which the hospital failed to do.

It also alleges that Northeast Kingdom Human Services was negligent for not warning patient’s parents that their son was a danger, and the social services nonprofit failed to adequately treat his condition.

The Retreat’s motion to dismiss states that the civil complaint “distorts the facts” of the case, specifically about the sequence of events noted by the treating psychiatrist in the medical record immediately prior to discharge.

It also states the complaint doesn’t make a valid legal argument.

Its motion argues that Vermont case law requires treatment providers to be aware of a “foreseeable victim(s)” in order to be liable for a subsequent injury.

Central Vermont Medical Center, where Rapoza initially arrived in the emergency department, filed paperwork to have Rapoza involuntarily treated, but that order was never granted by a judge. He was later released voluntarily from the Retreat to his parents, according to the motion to dismiss.

Involuntary patients go into state custody and can have court ordered discharge plans, including requiring them to take medication, that will result in recommitment if they don’t comply. Rapoza was under no such order.

But the Retreat states in its motion that even if Rapoza was an involuntary patient in state custody state law doesn’t “establish a legal duty of care owed from the Retreat to the public at large.”

In such an instance, the state would presumably have the legal duty to ensure an involuntary patient was in compliance with the discharge order.

A ruling in the family’s favor will force mental health workers to practice “defensive medicine” such that patients will be held long after they believe discharge is appropriate, the Retreat’s motion says.

If the motion to dismiss is granted, Cassidy said, the family will appeal, and an appeal is likely from the other side if it isn’t.

“We know the Kuligoski family went through a terrible experience, and they have our deepest sympathy,” said Retreat spokesman Jeff Kelliher in a statement in response for a request for comment. “Since the matter is in litigation, we are not able to comment further.”

The case is ripe to go before the Vermont Supreme Court, Cassidy said, because it hasn’t ruled definitively on mental health providers’ obligation to third parties.

Brattleboro Retreat’s response was added at 9:26 a.m., Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014.

Morgan True

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "Family sues Brattleboro Retreat, Northeast Kingdom Human Services for negligence"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dave Bellini
1 year 5 months ago

Save lives — close the Brattleboro Retreat.

Curtis Sinclair
1 year 5 months ago

“Since [Tarasoff,] courts and state legislatures have increasingly held psychiatrists to a fictional standard of having to predict the future behavior. Research has consistently demonstrated that psychiatrists cannot predict future violence with any dependable accuracy.” from Danger to Self: On the Front Line with an ER Psychiatrist by Paul Linde Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are specifically being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. I think it is because of this that people have… Read more »

Kathy Nelson
1 year 5 months ago

Curtis, the Digger will not print what I think about this situation. I find your summary of the legal situation to be so much drivel. There was a clear understanding of the propensity toward violence by Rapoza before he was foolishly released and allowed to ignore his medication. Rapoza is a criminal, not a “victim” of mental illness. He belongs in prison for attempted murder and inflicting brutal life threatening injury. If Michael Kurligoski dies as a result of what Rapoza did to him then Rapoza should be charged with murder, just like John Hinckley, the “disturbed” murderer of James… Read more »

Curtis Sinclair
1 year 5 months ago

It seems like you didn’t even read the article. Rapoza was initially committed to the Retreat with no criminal charge: “In 2010 he spent close to two months as an inpatient at the Brattleboro Retreat. Prior to his admission, Rapoza demonstrated threatening behavior and was hearing voices.” “Threatening behavior” could be almost anything. 99% of schizophrenics who exhibit some kind of “threatening behavior” never commit any violent crime. And there is no way to accurately predict who will.

Kathy Nelson
1 year 5 months ago

I read the article, Curtis, and I remember the attempted murder incident all too well. Here is another line from the article: “The civil complaint states Rapoza expressed homicidal and suicidal thoughts and exhibited violent behavior while an inpatient. He was placed on antipsychotic and anti-anxiety medications and spent much of his inpatient stay in seclusion with heavy staff supervision.” And another quote: “The day Rapoza was discharged from the Retreat, the treating psychiatrist noted, “his refusal of medications is very worrisome,” and that “he actually seems to have experienced an increase in his voices with only missing one night’s… Read more »

Curtis Sinclair
1 year 5 months ago

The term ‘Violent behavior’ is far too non-specific. At the Vermont State Hospital simply shoving another patient was considered ‘violent behavior’. I saw one man get his commitment extended for months after an incident like that. Christina Schumacher was accused of exhibiting violent behavior before she was locked up at Fletcher Allen unnecessarily. Did you read about her story last winter? That kind of thing will become common if the mental health thought police have to predict and prevent all violent behavior. In order to make sure everyone is absolutely perfectly “safe” you would have to detain and force drug… Read more »

steve merrill
1 year 5 months ago

I just don’t get it..If they can develop and insert long-lasting sub dermal birth control devices like Norplant then why not something similar for dangerous patients and the mental medications? If these “not guilty by reason of insanity” murderers cannot “function” without their meds then implant them so they can never choose to “not take them” or ever present a danger to the communities in which they are shipped off to. It’s a little tiring to see every “disorder” under the sun being blamed for the crimes committed by PEOPLE, who then get off lightly, sometimes on the word of… Read more »

Curtis Sinclair
1 year 5 months ago

According to the American Psychiatric Association, studies show that defendants acquitted by reason of insanity are likely to spend as much or more time confined in a psychiatric institution as they would have if convicted and sentenced to jail or prison for the same crime. One study determined insanity defense acquittees frequently spend twice as much time institutionalized as defendants convicted of a similar offense spend in correctional facilities. Additionally, once released, they may be subject to long-term judicial oversight, unlike a convict who received a conventional guilty verdict. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html I knew people at the State Hospital who WANTED to… Read more »

Bill Blanchard
1 year 5 months ago

The responses are worse than the article! Why can’t it be as simple as this: If you commit an act of violence upon another person without just cause then you get your day in court. If it is found that you have a mental health condition that caused you to act in such a way then you should be detained until there is a reasonable amount of evidence to show that it might not happen again. It is insane to think that only the mental health population are at risk for acting out behavior. ANYONE can become violent weather it… Read more »

Curtis Sinclair
1 year 5 months ago

It’s never that simple -or that fair. What counts as an act of violence? A shove? Yelling? A verbal threat? What would count as just cause for violence? How does a mental health condition cause a person to commit a crime? What is the exact definition of a mental health condition? Like I wrote above half of all people can be diagnosed as having a mental health condition at some point. A legal insanity ruling is the way the law is supposed to work now: The Vermont Statutes Online Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure Chapter 157: INSANITY AS A… Read more »

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Family sues Brattleboro Retreat, Northeast Kingdom Human Services for..."