BY: FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 69527

Transcription

1 THE D ARRO FIRM, P.C. DANIEL P. HARTSTEIN, ESQ. BY: FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQUIRE Identification No.: Identification No.: Liberty View 1325 Spruce St. 457 Haddonfield Rd., Ste. 310 Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ (fax) (fax) Darro.Law@verizon.net danhartstein@verizon.net Attorneys for Plaintiff s KAREN WEISMANTLE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1837 Spring Rd. : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Carlisle, PA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW And : DENNIS GREEN : 1837 Spring Rd. : Carlisle, PA : Plaintiffs : : vs. : APRIL TERM, 2012 : WALTER J. WALKER : (Aka Walter Allen Walker) : 118 E. Pomona St. : NO.: 2710 Philadelphia, PA : And : : FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH : SYSTEM : 561 Fairthorne Ave. : Philadelphia, PA : And : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. : 367 S. Gulph Rd. : King of Prussia, PA : : Defendants : COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY 10 AUG :08 am P. MARTIN

2 NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Lawyer Reference Service One Reading Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Telephone: AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de las fecha de la demanda y la notificion hace falta a sentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un adogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensa o sus objectiones a las de mandas en contra de su persona. Sea a visado que si unsted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la de manda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notofication. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros de rechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADOINME DIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIS LEGAL. Servicio de Referencia Legal Uno Reading Centro 11th Floor Filadelfia, PA Telefono

3 THE D ARRO FIRM, P.C. DANIEL P. HARTSTEIN, ESQ. BY: FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQUIRE Identification No.: Identification No.: Liberty View 1325 Spruce St. 457 Haddonfield Rd., Ste. 310 Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ (fax) (fax) Darro.Law@verizon.net danhartstein@verizon.net Attorneys for Plaintiff s KAREN WEISMANTLE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS And : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DENNIS GREEN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : Plaintiffs : : vs. : APRIL TERM, 2012 : WALTER J. WALKER : (Aka Walter Allen Walker) : And : NO.: 2710 FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH : SYSTEM : And : UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : Defendants : SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Karen Weismantle and Dennis Green, h/w, by and through their Attorneys, Francesco G. D Arro, Esquire and Daniel P. Hartstein, Esquire respectfully file this Complaint, demanding damages from defendants. This action is brought for damages resulting from, among other torts, defendants negligence and incompetence or alternatively, from defendants willful misconduct or gross negligence, and in support thereof, plaintiffs state as follows: THE PARTIES: 1. Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle, is an adult individual who resides at the captioned address.

4 2. Plaintiff, Dennis Green, is the husband of Karen Weismantle, who also resides at the captioned address. 3. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were married and living together as husband and wife. 4. Defendant Walter J. Walker, an adult individual also known as Walter Allen Walker, was at all relevant times employed by Fairmount Behavioral Health System as a Mental Health Technician (MHT), or hall monitor, or otherwise employed by defendant as a professional or nonprofessional employee. 5. Defendant, Fairmount Behavioral Health System ( Fairmount Health ), is a profit or nonprofit corporation or similar entity functioning as a mental health care facility, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and defendant is located at the captioned address in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs are asserting claims of ordinary negligence against this defendant, including but not limited to negligent hiring and/or supervision of its employees who were engaged in professional or non-professional activities, and in the alternative, plaintiffs are asserting claims for professional negligence to the extent if any that the action occurred within the course of a professional relationship and where medical judgment was substandard, as shall be determined through proper discovery. 6. Defendant, UHS of Fairmount Inc., a subsidiary of Universal Health Services Inc., is a profit or nonprofit Delaware or Pennsylvania corporation with a principle place of business located at the captioned

5 address in Pennsylvania, where it operates as a psychiatric hospital and does business as Fairmount Behavioral Health System. 7. Plaintiff s cause of action for sexual assault by an employee of Fairmount Health centers on Fairmount Health s failure to properly employ and supervise employees and on its failure to create an environment where a sexual assault could not occur. Under Pennsylvania law, in Smith v. Friends Hospital, 2007 PA Super 188, 928 A.2d 1072, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1669 (Pa. Super. 2007), a patient s cause of action for sexual assault by employees of a hospital centered on the hospital s failure to properly employ and supervise employees and on its failure to create an environment where a sexual assault could not occur. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the complaint did not allege professional negligence, but rather, ordinary negligence. 8. As to Defendants Fairmount Health and UHS of Fairmount Inc. together hereinafter referred to as Fairmount Health Defendants, their agents, professional employees, Mental Health Technicians ( MHT s ) and other non-professional, unlicensed employees this is a negligence action for failing to properly employ and supervise their employees, each of whom together or independently created an environment that permitted Plaintiff Karen Weismantle to be lewdly groomed, sexually assaulted and traumatized, and left unaided thereafter. Alternatively, and to the extent if any at all that it shall be properly determined through discovery that the grooming, sexual assault, traumatization and other

6 damages caused to Plaintiffs as alleged hereinafter rather resulted from a professional relationship that also involved substandard medical treatment; that is, acts involving diagnosis, care, and treatment of plaintiff by licensed professionals, this is a professional liability action against Fairmount Health Defendants. 9. At all relevant times, Fairmount Health Defendants, as corporate entities, were acting by and through their agents, servants, and employees, physicians, fellows, residents, interns, nurses, apparent agents, and/or ostensible agents, and any and all other staff and hospital personnel whose identities are presently known only to defendants, all of whom were acting under the control or right of control of defendants mentioned herein and within the course and scope of their employment, authority or apparent authority. THE FACTS: 10. At age 45, Plaintiff Karen Weismantle was admitted to Fairmount Health on April 24, 2010, following a plan or attempt of suicide and seeking treatment for depression and substance abuse. 11. At the time of her admission, plaintiff was a victim of years of childhood sexual abuse and childhood trauma caused by members of her family. 12. At the time of her admission and thereafter, plaintiff was not self-reliant and she was vulnerable; her condition required immediate treatment for recovering from her extreme emotional and psychological instability and for her physical security.

7 13. Fairmount Health Defendants promptly admitted Karen Weismantle into its custody in order to stabilize and safeguard her, and plaintiff was reliant upon Fairmount Health Defendant s care and supervision. 14. Upon being admitted to Fairmount Health, plaintiff relied upon defendants for her personal safety and was entitled to protection from the harm she ultimately suffered at Fairmount. 15. During the time that plaintiff was in Fairmount Health and under the care and custody of all defendants, she was evaluated and diagnosed with bipolar disorder, poly-substance dependence, dysphoria, and drug withdrawal. 16. During her admission to Fairmount Health, plaintiff was administered medications that affected her decision-making ability and made her further vulnerable and reliant upon Fairmount Health Defendants for her safety and well being during her admission and supervision. 17. On the second day of Karen Weismantle s admission at Fairmount Health, Defendant Walter Walker, began to groom her by making lewd, explicit, sexual remarks, suggestions, and sexual advances toward the medicated, depressed, and otherwise unstable plaintiff. 18. During her admission, Walker, with apparently unfettered and unsupervised access to plaintiff, approached plaintiff while she was waiting in line for her medications and attempted to lure plaintiff to the laundry room, which by information and belief is in a closed off area, and asked plaintiff if she would have some good sex with [him].

8 19. Subsequently on the same morning, Walker passed a note to plaintiff during plaintiff s group therapy, asking her, Do you squirt when you come? 20. Walker passed another note to plaintiff, still in group therapy, asking her, How about we have sex and see if it squirts? 21. Walker s approach of plaintiff in the medication line and passing of notes to plaintiff during group therapy were, by information and belief, in the presence of other Fairmount Health employees. 22. Later in Karen Weismantle s admission at Fairmount Health, on or about April 26, 2010, plaintiff was preparing to bathe in her bathroom, which was located entirely within her then closed room. 23. As afforded by Fairmount Health Defendants, plaintiff s room was not furnished with any locking mechanism and plaintiff, a medicated, female patient who was diagnosed with psychological illnesses, was wholly without protections other than those provided by Fairmount Health. 24. As plaintiff was disrobing, Defendant Walker entered plaintiff s room and plaintiff s bathroom without permission or invitation, at which time defendant secluded, restrained, molested, terrorized, and brutally attacked plaintiff against her desire, expectation, and will. 25. At the aforementioned time and location, Defendant Walter Walker forced Plaintiff Karen Weismantle to orally copulate, and he then ejaculated into plaintiff s mouth and onto her body. 26. Plaintiff, already a struggling victim of years of childhood sexual abuse and childhood trauma prior to the sexual assault in her room at Fairmount

9 Health, and still wholly under the care, control, supervision, custody, and authority of Fairmount Health Defendants, was caused to become terrorized, traumatized, devastated, threatened, and insecure, and as a result she did not dare immediately report the incident to other staff members. 27. Sometime later on April 26, 2010 plaintiff, still terrorized and humiliated, managed to report the incident to a staff member who eventually contacted the Philadelphia Police Department Special Victim s Unit. 28. The hereinbefore described sexual assault upon plaintiff was not the act of a third-party unknown to the Fairmount Health Defendants. 29. Fairmount Health Defendants then filed a 303 Petition (to extend involuntary emergency treatment) on April 26, While the purpose of the 303 petition ostensibly was to keep plaintiff from leaving the Fairmount Health facility due to a need for further treatment, the petition itself was void of reference to the sexual assault upon plaintiff by an employee of Fairmount Health Defendants. 31. The following day on April 27, 2010, at a Mental Health hearing on Fairmount Health Defendant s petition, defendant again wholly omitted any reference to the sexual assault committed upon plaintiff by a Fairmount employee, despite Fairmount Health already had notice of the assault. 32. Plaintiff was discharged from the Fairmount Health facility following the hearing on April 27, 2010, without any consideration that she had been sexually assaulted while at Fairmount Health on or about the previous day.

10 33. Such discharge prevented immediate treatment and evaluation of plaintiff in relation to her traumatization and retraumatization due to being sexually assaulted by an employee of Fairmount Health Defendants. 34. By information and belief, the Fairmount Health Defendants attempt to retain plaintiff against her will was for the purpose of continuing to suppress public disclosure of the sexual assault perpetrated against Plaintiff Weismantle by their employee at their facility. 35. The Philadelphia Police department conducted an investigation into the incident at Fairmount Health, as reported herein by plaintiff. As a result, Defendant Walter J. Walker was arrested, and on September 27, 2011 he pleaded guilty to crimes against Karen Weismantle including 18 Pa.C.S.A Indecent Assault Without Consent of Other and 18 Pa.C.S.A Unlawful Restraint with Serious Bodily Injury. 36. Since the time of the incident that took place at Fairmount Health and plaintiff s subsequent discharge, Plaintiff Karen Weismantle has suffered unbearable emotional trauma and depression, including a surge of flashbacks of childhood sexual abuse all of which are ongoing. 37. It is fully within the scope of all defendants duty of care and/or supervision to protect plaintiff against the avoidable injuries described herein. 38. At all times pertinent hereto, a special relationship existed between the plaintiff and the Fairmount Health Defendants that required the defendants to appropriately supervise both plaintiff and employees of the Fairmount Health Defendants.

11 39. During plaintiff s admission, she was to receive an appropriate standard of supervision by staff of Fairmount Health Defendants. 40. Fairmount Health Defendants were aware at all times pertinent hereto that Plaintiff suffered from mental illness, and as a result, was within a vulnerable population requiring protection and supervision. 41. At all times material hereto, Fairmount Health Defendants had a duty to properly train and supervise MHT s and any other employees including Defendant Walter J. Walker who were required to supervise/observe/ and appropriately interact with patients such as the plaintiff. 42. After accepting Plaintiff Karen Weismantle into its custody, Fairmount Health Defendants flagrantly and grossly deviated from its duties to plaintiff by permitting plaintiff to be groomed for inappropriate and unlawful sexual contact and by permitting the sexual assault upon plaintiff. 43. Fairmount Health Defendants failed to have a policy in place with respect to appropriate patient interaction by its personnel, and defendants did indeed fail to properly train and supervise its personnel in this regard in order to avoid inappropriate and unlawful treatment of patients, such as that which was permitted by defendants upon Karen Weismantle. 44. Alternatively, to the extent that Fairmount Health Defendants had a policy in place to properly train and supervise employees such as Walter J. Walker, such policy was grossly insufficient and/or was repeatedly violated by defendants due to negligence, incompetence, flagrant and gross negligence and/or reckless indifference.

12 45. Fairmount Health Defendants were grossly negligent and consciously indifferent to the fact that its environment fostered cruel and lewd behavior by its personnel, such as Walter J. Walker, who was permitted to groom patients such as plaintiff and sexually assault her. 46. At all times material hereto, Fairmount Health Defendants failed to have adequate guidelines for the safety of female patients, including plaintiff. 47. In the alternative and at all times material hereto, to the extent that Fairmount Health Defendants had adequate guidelines for the safety of female patients, including plaintiff, defendants permitted flagrant and repeated violations of such guidelines. 48. While under the care, supervision, and control of Defendants Fairmount Health and UHS of Fairmount Inc., Defendant Walter J. Walker, a nonprofessional employee, had free and unmonitored access to plaintiff s bedroom and bathroom. 49. Since at least the year 1989, Defendant Walter J. Walker had an extensive criminal history with numerous convictions going back more than twenty years prior to the time that Fairmount Health Defendants knowingly exposed Plaintiff to Defendant Walker. 50. Defendant Walter J. Walker s extensive criminal history preceded his hiring by Fairmount Health Defendants, and Fairmount Health Defendants maintained Defendant Walker s employment through the time that Defendant Walker committed the brutal sexual assault upon plaintiff. 51. Because of Defendant Walker s extensive prior criminal history - but notwithstanding the same Fairmount Health Defendants knew or should

13 have known that its employees, including Defendant Walker, could cause plaintiff or others similarly situated, bodily and psychological harm if not controlled, supervised, and subject to proper safeguards for employeepatient interaction. 52. The acts and/or failures to act of defendants not only increased the risk of harm to plaintiff, but also foreseeably resulted in the harm that was, in fact, realized by Plaintiff Karen Weismantle. 53. Such acts and/or failures to act by defendants were not the result of medical treatment and did not involve diagnosis, care, and treatment by licensed professionals. 54. Defendants acts and/or failures to act caused the plaintiff severe emotional stress, mental anguish, post traumatic stress disorder, and other psychological injuries in addition to aggravation of the plaintiff s preexisting emotional dysfunctions and also increased the risk of self-harm. 55. Defendants failures also caused physical injuries including injuries due to the brutal sexual assault upon plaintiff and physical manifestations of her psychological injuries. 56. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses as a result of defendants failures and breaches. 57. Further, Plaintiff Karen Weismantle has suffered pain, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of dignity, loss of life s pleasures, both past and future, as a result of defendants failures and breaches. 58. All of Fairmount Health Defendants acts and failures to act made the harm caused to Plaintiff foreseeable.

14 COUNT I NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, AND/OR RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. AND WALTER J. WALKER 59. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 1 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 60. The Fairmount Health Defendants at all times pertinent hereto voluntarily took custody of plaintiff under circumstances in which she was entirely dependent and vulnerable and under circumstances such as to deprive the Plaintiff of her normal opportunities for protection and self-protection. 61. At all times pertinent hereto, Fairmount Health Defendants took custody of plaintiff under circumstances as to subject her to limited freedoms and limited privacy, requiring a special duty of supervision. 62. The Fairmount Health Defendants at all times pertinent hereto had a duty to not grossly deviate from the ordinary standard of care not only as to the plaintiff, but also as to supervision and control of those who had or could come into contact with plaintiff, such as Defendant Walter J. Walker, so as to protect plaintiff from harm by others. 63. The sexual assault of plaintiff, a psychiatric patient, by an employee is a gross and flagrant deviation from all defendants standard of care with regard to plaintiff. 64. The repeated grooming of plaintiff and subsequent sexual assault of plaintiff, a psychiatric patient, in her room was due to more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference on the part of the Fairmount Health Defendants.

15 65. At all times pertinent hereto, Fairmount Health Defendants knew or should have known that they had the ability to monitor, supervise, and control the conduct of Defendant Walker. 66. At all relevant times, the Fairmount Health Defendants knew of plaintiff s history of being attacked by others and of her mental illness and otherwise vulnerable state of being. 67. The negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, recklessness, reckless indifference, and willful misconduct of the Fairmount Health Defendants included, but was not limited to: a. failing to oversee, supervise and/or monitor Defendant Walker at all relevant times and on multiple occasions, allowing him to sexually batter and brutalize plaintiff; b. failing to recognize Defendant Walker s inappropriate, lewd treatment of plaintiff, prior to and during the sexual assault upon plaintiff; c. failing to recognize that Defendant Walker was grooming female patients, including plaintiff, for sexual contact. d. failing to prevent Defendant Walker from grooming female patients, including plaintiff, for sexual contact. e. failing to oversee, supervise and/or monitor Plaintiff Karen Weismantle at all relevant times on multiple occasions, permitting plaintiff to be sexually assaulted and traumatized by Defendant Walker; f. flagrant breaches of the duties contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 315, 319, 323 and 324A as recognized under

16 Pennsylvania law by failing to supervise Plaintiff Karen Weismantle and their own employee, Defendant Walter J. Walker; g. failing to supervise and train employees in proper supervision of other employees and patients that respectively work or are admitted at Fairmount Health; h. failing to formulate and/or enforce policies in place to protect against sexual abuse of patients; i. failing to comply with its own policies for supervision of patients; j. repeatedly ignoring or failing to notice violations of policies in the supervision of Defendant Walker; k. failing to implement an adequate Quality Assurance program to monitor and promote compliance with policies regarding safety or treatment of patients by employees of defendant; l. failing to comply with their own policies of supervising individuals who had been placed in their custody; m. failing to take proper security measures; n. failing to provide for the safety and protection of plaintiff; o. failing to prevent violations of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code against its patients, including, inter alia, 18 Pa.C.S.A Indecent Assault Without Consent of Other and 18 Pa.C.S.A Unlawful Restraint with Serious Bodily Injury; p. repeatedly failing to supervise unlicensed mental health technicians to ensure that the facility policies for supervision were being followed; q. repeatedly failing to monitor mental health technicians

17 supervision/observation of patients, including Plaintiff Karen Weismantle; r. repeatedly permitting unauthorized, unqualified, and/or unsupervised personnel to interact with patients, such as plaintiff; s. failing to create an environment where acts of sexual assault would not occur; t. failing to intervene during the sexual assault of plaintiff; u. failing to properly select, hire, and train the agents, servants, and employees of Fairmount Health; v. failing to properly and adequately monitor the competency of members of Fairmount Health Defendant s professional and/or non professional staff and to monitor the adequacy of the care and supervision rendered by said staff to all patients, including Plaintiff Karen Weismantle; w. failing to properly and adequately formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules, policies and protocols related to employee/patient interaction; x. exhibiting incompetence in the care, supervision, and protection of plaintiff; y. exhibiting incompetence in the training and supervision of employees, including Walter J. Walker. 68. Defendant Walker owed a duty to plaintiff not to sexually assault her, which duty was breached by defendant through negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, carelessness, and recklessness all of which

18 were aided, fostered, permitted, supported, advanced and/or cultivated by the Fairmount Health Defendants acts and/or failures to act and/or willful disregard of the risks of its acts and/or failures to act, as set forth herein. 69. As a result of the aforementioned negligence, gross negligence, willful misconduct, incompetence, and recklessness, and/or other tortious conduct of defendants, Plaintiff Karen Weismantle suffered immense and unwarranted pain, and she sustained injuries in and about her body, some or all of which may be permanent in nature, including but not limited to bodily injury, including from the sexual assault and from the physical manifestations from her psychological injuries, severe psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, loss of selfesteem, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation, paranoia, social dysfunction, anxiety, fear, and loss of enjoyment. 70. The aforementioned losses suffered by Plaintiff Karen Weismantle, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, incompetence, flagrant and gross negligence, recklessness and/or willful misconduct and other tortious conduct of all of the defendants herein acting either individually and/or through their respective agents, servants or employees, and said losses are not due to any act or failure to act on the part of plaintiff. 71. It is believed and therefore averred that there are no other secondary responsible causes for the injuries suffered by plaintiff, including plaintiff s underlying medical condition. 72. As a further result of defendants misconduct, plaintiff has and continues to require medical testing, treatment, and psychological & emotional

19 therapy, and plaintiff has incurred substantial costs and expenses for such treatment and therapy and may continue to incur such costs and expenses in the future. 73. As a further result of defendants tortious conduct, plaintiff has suffered humiliation, embarrassment, continuous emotional pain and suffering, a loss of life s pleasures, and an inability to continue her daily chores, obligations, and activities. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT II NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. AND WALTER J. WALKER 74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 2 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 75. As set forth more fully above, the outrageous violations and breaches of the defendants, jointly and severally, directly and proximately caused severe emotional distress and trauma to the plaintiff, manifesting itself in psychological and emotional injuries, including the physical manifestations from the sexual assault and from her psychological injuries, as set forth above.

20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT III INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANT WALTER J. WALKER 76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 3 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Walter J. Walker s assault and battery, jointly and severally with Fairmount Health Defendants breaches, Defendant Walker inflicted severe emotional distress, mental anguish and pain and suffering upon plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT IV ASSAULT & BATTERY PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANT WALTER J. WALKER 78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 4 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 79. As set forth above, Defendant Walter J. Walker s non-consensual sexual assault constituted an assault and battery.

21 80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Walter J. Walker s assault and battery, jointly and severally with Fairmount Health Defendants numerous breaches, Plaintiff suffered permanent harm as set forth herein. 81. As a direct and proximate result of these failures, plaintiff was damaged and harmed as described above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT V NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. 82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 5 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 83. In or around the time the Fairmount Health Defendants hired Defendant Walter J. Walker, the Fairmount Health Defendants knew the troubled and vulnerable nature of their patients. 84. In addition, The Fairmount Health Defendants hired Defendant Walter J. Walker, despite at the time of his hiring Defendant Walker had an extensive criminal history going back to at least the year 1989 and continuing throughout the time of the sexual assault against Plaintiff Karen Weismantle, for which he was convicted.

22 85. By information and belief, The Fairmount Health Defendants hired Defendant Walter J. Walker without conducting prior background checks and without vetting Walker. 86. In the alternative and by further information and belief, to the extent that The Fairmount Health Defendants conducted prior background checks of Defendant Walter J. Walker and/or vetted Walker, such background checks and/or vetting was done inadequately, negligently and incompetently. 87. By information and belief, The Fairmount Health Defendants negligently and incompetently retained Defendant Walter J. Walker after hiring him. 88. Notwithstanding the extensive, criminal history of Defendant Walker, Fairmount Health Defendants failed to properly hire, train, control, supervise, monitor, and subject Defendant Walker to proper safeguards for employee-patient interaction as described herein. 89. As set forth in Count I, herein, The Fairmount Health Defendants failed to supervise and train employees in proper supervision of other employees and patients that respectively work or are admitted at Fairmount Health; 90. As further set forth in Count I, herein, The Fairmount Health Defendants failed to properly select, hire, and train the agents, servants, and employees of Fairmount Health Defendants; 91. As further set forth in Count I, herein, The Fairmount Health Defendants failed to supervise unlicensed mental health technicians to ensure that the facility policies for supervision were being followed;

23 92. As further set forth in Count I, herein, The Fairmount Health Defendants repeatedly ignored or failed to notice violations of policies in the supervision of Defendant Walker; 93. As a direct and proximate result of these failures, plaintiff s risk of harm was increased, and the risk of said harm was indeed realized by plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT VI NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO RESCUE PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. AND WALTER J. WALKER 94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 6 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 95. The negligence and recklessness of all defendants, jointly and severally, in directly and proximately causing the incident and damages described herein, included: a. failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the unreasonable risk of physical harm to Plaintiff caused by defendants negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and/or reckless indifference, as alleged herein; b. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue Plaintiff after placing her in a perilous position;

24 c. failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm after rendering Plaintiff helpless and in danger of further harm; d. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Plaintiff after rendering Plaintiff helpless and in danger of further harm; e. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to obtain aid or assistance for Plaintiff after rendering Plaintiff helpless and in danger of further harm; f. exhibiting a callous disregard for Plaintiff s life and physical condition after rendering her helpless and in danger of further harm; g. violation of the duties set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 321 & 322, as adopted in Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT VII FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF KAREN WEISMANTLE v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. 96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 7 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 97. Fairmount Health Defendants had a special relationship with Plaintiff at all times relevant hereto.

25 98. Fairmount Health Defendants had a duty pursuant to Section 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as adopted in Pennsylvania to protect Plaintiff from the unreasonable risk of harm created by their negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and/or reckless indifference. 99. Fairmount Health Defendants breached their duty to protect Plaintiff from the unreasonable risk of harm created by their negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and/or reckless indifference, as alleged herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Weismantle demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM PLAINTIFF DENNIS GREEN v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. AND WALTER J. WALKER 100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 8 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein As a result of the negligence and other tortious conduct of defendants, Plaintiff Dennis Green has and will continue indefinitely to be deprived of the companionship, consortium and society of his wife, Plaintiff Karen Weismantle As a further result of the aforementioned tortious conduct of defendants, Plaintiff Dennis Green has incurred a loss of his own and has been caused to expend various sums of money for his wife s treatment and care, and

26 has suffered the loss of the value of her services, the sum of all of which may be continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dennis Green demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages as permitted by law, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest and costs. COUNT IX CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS KAREN WEISMANTLE AND DENNIS GREEN v. DEFENDANTS FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs preceding and subsequent to Count 9 as if the same were fully set forth at length herein At all times relevant hereto, the Fairmount Health and UHS of Fairmount Inc. Defendants had a legal responsibility pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 591 A.2d 703 (1991) and its progeny and under Pennsylvania law for any and all negligent failures to act in accordance with the hospital s non-delegable corporate duties to its patients, including plaintiff, Karen Weismantle. See also, Smith v. Friends Hospital, 2007 PA Super 188, 928 A.2d 1072, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1669 (Pa. Super. 2007) (permitting claims of corporate negligence against Friends Hospital for negligent supervision leading to sexual assault/sexual abuse of a patient) Defendants are responsible and legally liable for corporate negligence, due to their own negligent acts and omissions.

27 106. On information and belief, the negligence of each defendant herein consist of the following actions and/or omissions: a. Failing to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities; b. Failing to select and to retain only competent professional and nonprofessional personnel; c. Failing to oversee all persons who may come into contact with mental health patients within its walls as to patient care; d. Failing to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients, including Karen Weismantle; e. Maintaining flawed processes of care and safety resulting in plaintiff s brutal sexual assault and emotional trauma; f. Failing to have adequate quality training for the professionals and other staff in question; g. Vicarious liability for the negligent acts within the scope of their employment of their agents, servants, employees, apparent agents, and/or ostensible agents, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, residents, hall monitors, attendants, or other medical staff or personnel within the control or supervision of Fairmount Health; h. Such other acts or omissions as may be determined during the course of discovery The aforementioned negligence was a substantial factor in causing the damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karen Weismantle and Dennis Green as articulated herein.

28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karen Weismantle and Dennis Green demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum in excess of the arbitration limits in Philadelphia County in compensatory damages and punitive damages as permitted by law, exclusive of pre- judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. August 10, 2012 BY: /s/ DANIEL P. HARTSTEIN, ESQUIRE LibertyView 457 Haddonfield Rd. Suite 310 Cherry Hill, NJ August 10, 2012 BY: /s/ FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQUIRE Attorney ID: The Biddle House 1325 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA

29 THE D ARRO FIRM, P.C. DANIEL P. HARTSTEIN, ESQ. BY: FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQUIRE Identification No.: Identification No.: Liberty View 1325 Spruce St. 457 Haddonfield Rd., Ste. 310 Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ (fax) (fax) Darro.Law@verizon.net danhartstein@verizon.net Attorneys for Plaintiff s KAREN WEISMANTLE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS And : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS GREEN : Plaintiffs : vs. : : WALTER J. WALKER : (aka Walter Allen Walker) : And : APRIL TERM, 2012 FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH : SYSTEM : NO.: 2710 And : UHS OF FAIRMOUNT INC. : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants : CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint was duly filed and served on all parties through the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas electronic filing system on 8/10/12. If the following party(ies) is not accordingly served, the undersigned shall cause the following to be served, via regular first-class mail postage prepaid. Walter J. Walker And Fairmount Behavioral Health System And UHS of Fairmount, Inc. Date: August 10, 2012 BY: /s/ FRANCESCO G. D ARRO, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs