COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Transcription

1 DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: Denver City & County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO Plaintiffs: CAMERON GEORGE and JOHN GEORGE Defendants: AMINOKIT LABORATORIES INC., a Colorado Corporation d/b/a TREATMENT CENTERS XL; TAMEA RAE SISCO, Individually, and as Beneficial Owner of AMINOKIT LABORATORIES, INC.; JONATHAN LEE, MD; LEO RUNNELS; DENNIS THOMPSON, DC; and WHITE LODGING SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a The Fairfield Inn, a Foreign Corporation. Plaintiffs Counsel: LAW OFFICES OF J.M. REINAN, P.C. Jerome M. Reinan, #22031 Jordana Griff Gingrass, # High Street Denver, CO (303) (303) (FAX) jreinan@reinanlaw.com jgingrass@reinanlaw.com! COURT USE ONLY! Case No.: Division COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND COME NOW the Plaintiffs, CAMERON GEORGE and JOHN GEORGE, by and through counsel, the Law Offices of J.M. Reinan, P.C., and for their Complaint and Jury Demand against AMINOKIT LABORATORIES INC., a Colorado Corporation, d/b/a TREATMENT CENTERS XL; TAMEA RAE SISCO, Individually, and as Beneficial Owner of AMINOKIT LABORATORIES, INC.; JONATHAN LEE, MD; LEO RUNNELS; DENNIS THOMPSON, DC; and WHITE LODGING SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a The Fairfield Inn, a foreign corporation, state and aver as follows: 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION, PARTIES AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. This case is brought to redress the deception, racketeering activity, neglect and harm visited upon Plaintiff Cameron George, herein Cameron, a vulnerable consumer of substance abuse and mental health services, and his father, John George, herein John, who sought and paid for those services, by Defendants, who own and operate an addiction and mental health treatment center, and a hotel used as an unlicensed, inpatient treatment facility. 2. This is the second lawsuit brought against these same Defendants based upon allegations of a similar pattern of racketeering, fraud and deceptive trade practices. 3. The first complaint is titled Jane Doe v. Aminokit et al., Case No. 2014CV32155, Courtroom 280 in the Denver District Court. The allegations of that Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth verbatim herein for the purposes of brevity and for the purpose of demonstrating a pattern and practice of wrongful conduct. 4. Defendant Aminokit Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter Aminokit ) is a Colorado corporation that sometimes does business as Treatment Center XL XCEL Treatment Center, The Treatment Center, and/or Excel Treatment Center. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sisco, the beneficial owner of Aminokit, has changed the company name several times for the purpose of avoiding creditors and liability. In any case, Aminokit continues to use former corporate names interchangeably and does not otherwise maintain a proper corporate form. 6. Aminokit has its headquarters and administrative offices at 1660 South Albion Street, Suite 420, Denver Colorado 80222, and is now believed to have a second location in or around Sky Ridge Medical Center in Parker, Colorado. 7. Aminokit operates what purports to be an inpatient medical detoxification facility, as well as a substance addiction and mood disorder treatment center. 8. Defendants operate their inpatient detoxification and addiction treatment facility out of Defendant White Lodging Service Corporation s Fairfield Inn and Suites Cherry Creek (hereinafter Fairfield and White Lodging ), located at 1680 South Colorado Blvd., Denver, Colorado Upon information and belief, Defendant White Lodging is a franchisee of Marriott International. 9. Defendant Tamea Rae Sisco ( Sisco ) is the beneficial owner, president and operator of Aminokit. 10. Defendant Jonathan Lee, MD ( Lee ) is a physician and was Aminokit s Medical Director at all times relevant. 2

3 11. Defendant Leo Runnels ( Runnels ) was at times relevant Aminokit s Chief Operating Officer. 12. Defendant Dennis Thompson, DC ( Thompson ) is a chiropractor claiming to specialize in the field of addiction treatment. Thompson provided addiction treatment to Aminokit patients, including Cameron, during times relevant to the Complaint, and also acted as a clinical supervisor for Aminokit s medical detoxification and treatment program. 13. Demetrius Gianopoulos ( Demetrius ) and Brandon Flowers, ( Brandon ) were at all times relevant agents and/or employees of Aminokit. 14. Aminokit assigned Demetrius and Brandon several duties, including, inter alia, marketing Aminokit s services; supervising patients, including Cameron; transporting patients, including Cameron; administering medications and treatments, including to Cameron; counseling; and milieu supervision. 15. Aminokit is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of Demetrius, Sisco, Brandon and Aminokit s other agents and employees. 16. Defendants Aminokit, Sisco, Lee, Runnells and Thompson are referred to herein collectively as the Aminokit Defendants, as they acted in concert with one another to cause the injuries described herein. 17. Defendant White Lodging is the owner and/or operator and/or franchisee of the Fairfield Inn and Suites - Cherry Creek. 18. At all times relevant, Defendant White Lodging was in possession of the Fairfield Inn hotel premises located at 1680 S. Colorado Blvd. and was otherwise responsible for the condition of the property and the activities that took place on the property. 19. During times relevant to this Complaint, Fairfield served as Aminokit s unlicensed and un-regulated inpatient treatment facility where Cameron and other patients received care and treatment. 20. Venue is proper within the City and County of Denver as the acts and omissions described herein took place within the City and County of Denver and because the amount at issue exceeds the jurisdiction of the County Court. A. Aminokit s False Promises and Representations 21. Cameron has suffered from poly-substance abuse, mental health and addiction issues for several years and has sought treatment for those issues from various providers. 3

4 22. Prior to Cameron s admission to Aminokit, Cameron and John conducted research into addiction and mental health programs for Cameron, who had relapsed and was suffering from addiction issues. 23. Cameron and John found Aminokit s Internet website and read and relied upon its contents. 24. Aminokit s website is directed toward not only patients struggling with drug and alcohol addiction and mental health issues, but also to the patients family members, who Aminokit knows often make or participate in the making of treatment decisions, particularly when the actual consumer is disabled from drug or alcohol addiction. 25. Cameron also called Aminokit and talked to Demetrius, who reiterated many of the promises on Aminokit s website. Demetrius touted the benefits of Amino therapy and promised that it would cure the cognitive deficits caused by Cameron s substance abuse. 26. Cameron later talked to Defendant Sisco, who also reiterated many of the promises about Amino therapy contained on Aminokit s website. Sisco held herself out as a doctor and as an addictionologist during this conversation, as she is represented in Aminokit s advertising materials. 27. Sisco promised that Aminokit could reverse the addiction-related damage caused to Cameron s dopamine receptors. 28. Sisco and Demetrius both promised that Aminokit s program would cost a total of $8, Cameron talked to his parents, including John, about the program and John agreed to loan Cameron the money to pay for the Aminokit program. 30. Aminokit promises and represents, in its widely disseminated advertisements contained on the Internet, that it has a specialized expertise in the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction as well as the treatment of other mental health disorders. 31. Among other things, Aminokit made the following promises and representations to its actual and prospective consumers, including Plaintiffs: a) We understand that substance abuse is a complex disorder that is difficult to treat single-handedly. b) We don t hold our patients at fault for their addiction and understand that addiction is not their fault. c) It will take a structured and comprehensive treatment plan to set you on the road to recovery. d) Under the heading Medical Detox, Aminokit promises: 4

5 1) Patients who choose medical detoxification often opt for an inpatient setting, such as a drug rehabilitation facility, to undergo a safe detox in a setting that is medically supervised. Once enrolled, they may receive alcohol and drug treatment from a staff of psychiatrists, medical doctors, nurses and drug and alcohol counselors. Aminokit Laboratories provides a multi-tiered philosophy that fuses traditional techniques for substance abuse with cutting-edge methods for stabilizing brain chemistry through a practice known as intravenous protein therapy. In addition to the aforementioned health professionals, Aminokit Laboratories also employs Licensed Addiction Counselors and Life Coaches as well as practitioners skilled in alternative healing such as addictionologists, ayurvedic practitioners, chiropractic doctors, massage therapists and acupuncturists with decades of addiction treatment experience. This ensures the best possible physical, mental and emotional well-being of each patient and provides the best opportunity possible for them to develop specific plans for continued treatment and recovery. 2) Aminokit Laboratories has developed a unique amino acid formula that can be used orally and intravenously by our patients. Our U.S. patented TGGRS (Third Generation Genetic Recovery System) Amino Acid Neurotransmitter Restoration formula greatly reduces cravings, muscle aches, anxiety and other withdrawal symptoms that often occur during detoxification. The formula also immensely reduces the effects of Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome, thus reducing the chances for relapse. 3) You don t have to be ashamed of your disorder and you won t feel judged at our facility because we understand that addiction is not your fault. Speak to your health care practitioner to determine if medical detoxification is right for you. e) Although addiction is complex and resistant to treatment, AminoKit Laboratories has an 80 to 90 percent success rate with helping patients manage their addiction disease processes. f) Our trained medical professionals offer an innovative drug and alcohol recovery program complete with TGGRS (Third Generation Genetic Recovery System). With an unmatched I.V. protocol, we provide highly beneficial state-of-the-art technology for the successful management of addiction, and we were the first clinic in the United States to incorporate the TGGRS formula for the treatment of genetic and environmental addictions. g) Aminokit further promises to actual and prospective consumers of its services, including Plaintiff, that: 5

6 1) Mia [Sisco] comes to AminoKit Laboratories with more than two decades worth of experience in the fields of addiction and medical detoxification. 2) [Sisco] holds the title of Addictionologist from the American College of Addictionology and Compulsive Disorders, where she is also a board member. 3) [Sisco] is a medical detoxification specialist, with focus and dedication in product and formula development and engineering biochemical repair of neurotransmitter and receptors. 4) [Sisco] holds multiple U.S. patents on neurotransmitter repair and addiction recovery products. A trailblazer in this field, she helped more than 6,000 patients in their recovery process with her revolutionary TGGRS formulas. To ensure the safest and most effective products for neurotransmitter repair and addiction recovery, Mia is constantly improving, researching new and updating our formulas. Mia is heading a product sales campaign in the private and public sector, expanding into untapped markets that can greatly benefit from neurotransmitter restoration, such as Modera XL. h) Aminokit also specifically promises: 1) Medical History and Physical Examination: With our Medical Director for I.V. TGGRS Therapy. Prescriptions and other medical detoxification medications that are necessary will be determined at that time. 2) Venipuncture for full blood work-up: Individualized ordered Lab Series by our Medical Staff. 3) I.V. TGGRS Therapy ($ each per double dosage): You will receive approximately 10 Treatments at $ per treatment. (The above price includes an additional 6 boosters I.V. s administered over a 30 day period or 16 treatments total) 4) Neurotransmitter testing: (dopamine/ GABA/ endorphins/ encephalons / serotonin/ cortisol) To be administered and interpreted in order to insure proper customization of TGGRS formula. 5) Relapse Prevention Groups: Utilizing the best practices of Lisa Najavitz s Seeking Safety for complex PTSD and 12 steps for cognitive and behavioral reprogramming. 6) Aminokit promises that its treatments only require 10 days of our proprietary formulas to eliminate relapse and diminish withdraws and cravings. 7) Aminokit further promises, give us 3 days and we ll get you clean give us 10 days and we ll repair the damaged neurotransmitters & receptors in your brain give us 30 days 6

7 and we ll give you your joy back give us 60 days and we ll give you a new lease on life. [Emphases supplied] 32. In addition to the written promises and advertisements above, Aminokit s Internet website has a series of videos that make additional promises and representations regarding Aminokit s purportedly unique and state of the art treatment program. 33. Some of the videos feature Sisco, Aminokit s founder, who is held out as a doctor and an addictionologist. Sisco is dressed in a doctor s white lab coat and shown taking patient histories and administering medical treatments, clearly held out to the public as a doctor. 34. In another video, Sisco is shown performing venipuncture and administering IV medications to a patient. 35. Aminokit also promises a coordinated team approach to addiction recovery by its well-qualified professional staff, which it repeatedly refers to as a medical staff. These members of the medical staff include Defendants Lee and Thompson. 36. Sisco and other Aminokit agents and employees repeatedly orally promise to patients, including Plaintiff, that Aminokit operates an inpatient, 24-hour medically supervised detoxification program, which in effect was the inpatient program administered at the Fairfield Inn. 37. Sisco and other agents of Aminokit, including Demetrius, also promise that the program cost is all-inclusive, meaning that meals and activities are included in that price. Aminokit additionally promises inpatient services at Fairfield, with a medical rate of $49 for its patients. 38. The Aminokit Defendants promises and representations as well as the entire Aminokit program is riddled with fraud and deception. 39. The Aminokit Defendants know and intend that their promises, representations and entire marketing program are fraudulent and deceptive. 40. In particular, the Aminokit Defendants: a) Know and intend that Aminokit is operated by Sisco, who the Aminokit Defendants know has been engaged in fraudulent schemes for a number of years, and who is neither licensed nor an addiction medicine professional. Among other things: i. Sisco lost her chiropractic license in both Kansas and Colorado as a result of fraud. 7

8 ii. If patients learn Sisco does not have a license (while already in treatment), patients are told it merely expired because she (voluntarily) no longer practices chiropractic. iii. Sisco is not a doctor, is not an addictionologist, is not a medical professional and cannot provide medical detox because she has no license in any medical field. iv. Sisco identifies herself as a doctor; has the address of aminodoc@gmail.com; and uses the designation PhD after her name on Aminokit s official Colorado Division of Behavioral Health license. v. Sisco holds herself out to be in charge of all treatment decisions to all patients during their stay. Since she is rarely available, she knowingly leaves all patients in the direct (and sole) care of Demetrius and Brandon, thus holding them out to be delegates with all authority regarding treatment, medications, psychological care and supervision. vi. Sisco is and has been subject to a Cease and Desist Order entered by the State of Colorado that prevents her from acting as a doctor or otherwise pretending to be a doctor, and which specifically prevents her from administering IV medications, which is what she does at Aminokit. As determined by the Colorado Board of Chiropractic Medicine: vii. Sisco was also accused of being involved in the trafficking of Human Growth Hormone along with her former husband and, upon information and belief, current roommate, Keith Skinner--who also had his chiropractic license revoked due to fraud--and Albert Celio, a former physician who was sentenced to prison for trafficking in steroids. viii. Sisco and her various companies have been previously sued by previous patients for similar conduct, including fraud and deceptive trade practices in Maes v. Real Substance Solutions, et al, Case No. 2006CV4891 in Denver District Court; Harrington v. Real Substance Solutions, et al, Case No. 2005CV2260 in Denver District Court; and Odefey v. Excel Treatment Program, LLC et al, Case No. 2006CV210 in Elbert County District Court. 8

9 ix. Sisco has also been a named Defendant in a number of other cases involving such claims as conversion and breach of contract. b) Defendants know and intend that Aminokit does not have any medically trained addiction professionals on staff. More specifically, Aminokit has no trained addiction professionals. The sole medically trained person on staff, Defendant Lee, is an emergency physician who runs a laser hair removal and Botox clinic. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lee has no formal training or certification in addiction. Aminokit has an apparent history of employing physicians and others with no expertise in addiction or mental health, many of whom practice outside the scope of their license. Several of the medical staff listed on previous website versions had expired licenses at the time they were listed on the site. c) Defendants know and intend that Aminokit does not have an inpatient medical facility, but rather that Aminokit uses the Fairfield Inn as its unlicensed, unregulated hospital, where it administers medical treatments, gives oral and IV medications, and supervises the detoxification of its very sick patients going through drug and alcohol withdrawal. d) Defendants knew or should have known that Demetrius had a history of fraudulent conduct. e) Defendants knew or should have known that Brandon was a current drug addict, and had a history of multiple felony convictions and incarcerations. f) Defendants know and intend that Aminokit s detox patients are not medically supervised, but rather supervised at the Fairfield Inn by former and current addicts, including Demetrius and Brandon, neither of whom are trained or licensed to administer medicine or treatments. g) Defendants know and intend that important, critical information about Aminokit s program and the licensure and status of its employees is fraudulently withheld from consumers, including Plaintiff, in violation of C.R.S (1)(u). B. Fairfield s operation as an unlicensed, unregulated hospital facility for Aminokit patients 41. Since Aminokit promises to provide inpatient medical services but operates out of a small suite in an office building, it contracts with Fairfield to operate its medical facility at Fairfield s hotel, located adjacent to Aminokit. 42. Through an agreement reached between Aminokit and Fairfield, and ratified by Fairfield s Operations Manager, Jeremy Anderson, Aminokit s patients are admitted to Fairfield for drug or alcohol addiction treatment and medical detoxification. 43. In exchange for the business created by Aminokit s patients which, upon information and belief, can in some cases amount to $30, per month or more in fees for Fairfield Fairfield provided Aminokit s employees, including Sisco, Demetrius, Lee and Brandon, with duplicate keys and access to Aminokit patients rooms to carry out its operations, 9

10 even when patients, including Cameron, instructed Fairfield to prevent room access to Aminokit s agents and employees. 44. In fact, Fairfield s guest folio for the room it rented to Cameron shows that the guest of the room is Brandon of XCEL Treatment Center, which is another trade name used by Aminokit. Upon information and belief, Fairfield regularly listed Aminokit/XCEL agents as guests of rooms actually occupied by Aminokit patients. 45. Fairfield s Operations Manager, Jeremy Anderson, knew that Fairfield was being used as a detox hospital for Aminokit patients and knew that Fairfield s staff gave Aminokit employees card keys and room access to Aminokit agents and employees. 46. Fairfield thus knew and intended that its guest rooms were rented for the specific use of medical detoxification and hospital treatment for Aminokit patients. 47. Fairfield further allowed Aminokit agents and employees, including Demetrius and Brandon, to make room assignments for Aminokit patients and to move Aminokit patients from room to room without the knowledge or consent of the paying Aminokit patients. 48. Fairfield knew of and allowed Aminokit and its agents and employees to move medicine and durable medical equipment in and out of the Fairfield rooms designated as Aminokit hospital/detox rooms. 49. Fairfield also knew of and allowed Aminokit agents and employees, including Demetrius and Brandon, to charge food, soda and sundry items to Aminokit patients, including Plaintiffs. 50. Fairfield specifically gave Aminokit s agents and employees control over Aminokit patient rooms because Fairfield knew and intended that Aminokit would use those rooms for medical detoxification and the medical treatment of Aminokit patients, and because Fairfield knows that such patients require 24-hour supervision by Aminokit s staff. 51. Fairfield thus conspired with Aminokit and its agents and employees to operate Fairfield Inn as an unlicensed, unregulated hospital for the medical treatment of Aminokit patients, and for the joint financial benefit of Fairfield and Aminokit. C. Facts specific to Plaintiffs 52. Based upon the promises and representations regarding Aminokit s comprehensive and effective treatment program, as well as those promises set forth in detail above, John and Cameron agreed to have Cameron admitted to Aminokit s treatment program. 10

11 53. Demetrius was assigned by Aminokit to assist in Cameron s treatment and transported Cameron from the airport to Aminokit and Fairfield using a vehicle owned by Sisco or Aminokit/XCEL. 54. Cameron and John and were led to believe, through the acts, conduct and statements of Aminokit s employees, including Sisco, that Demetrius was a professional counselor and a professional employee of Aminokit. 55. Demetrius represented himself to Cameron and John as not only a medical professional, but as Medical Detox Coordinator and a decision-maker for Aminokit. He repeatedly claimed he was in charge of patient care and in fact had Aminokit business cards to that effect. 56. The Aminokit Defendants did not disclose to Plaintiffs that Demetrius had recently undergone addiction treatment himself, that he had not been vetted or background checked by Aminokit and that in fact Aminokit did not consider him an employee but rather a volunteer who it would assign to routinely supervise, treat and counsel patients, including Cameron, so that Aminokit would not have to pay more expensive, qualified personnel. 57. Also not disclosed to Plaintiffs was the fact that another employee, Brandon, was not background checked and, like Demetrius, was an active drug addict. 58. Upon admission to Aminokit s medical detoxification facility at the Fairfield Inn in May, 2012, Cameron was in a state of medication withdrawal, which is a serious and potentially fatal medical condition. 59. At the time of admission, Aminokit was provided with a payment of $4, from John s credit card for Cameron s initial round of treatment. The credit card charge was made and accomplished through the interstate wires. 60. Also at the time of admission, the Fairfield desk staff provided the Aminokit employees, including Demetrius, with a duplicate key to Cameron s room because of Cameron s status as an Aminokit patient. 61. Fairfield regularly provided duplicate room keys for other patient rooms to Aminokit and its employees. 62. Aminokit s agents and employees did not take Cameron s vital signs at the time of admission, and failed to perform routine labs or a physical exam. 63. In fact, Aminokit did not make or retain reasonable medical or treatment records for Cameron and refused several attempts to provide such records. 11

12 64. Cameron was medically attended by Defendant Lee, Aminokit s medical director, and Cameron s treating physician. 65. Cameron met with Lee shortly after his admission at Aminokit s office suite. 66. Cameron gave Lee his medical history and asked to talk to Lee about his medical treatment plan. 67. Lee essentially cut Cameron off and dismissed Cameron s concerns without a proper evaluation, assessment or medical plan. 68. When Cameron told Lee that one of his problems was Adderall addiction, Lee was dismissive, telling Cameron something to the effect that, lots of people take Adderall. It s not a problem. 69. Cameron also told Lee that his drug use had caused him a number of physical and neurological symptoms that he wanted to discuss and have assessed and treated, including balance issues, cognitive deficits, gastrointestinal problems, and a disparity in the sizes of his pupils. 70. Lee told Cameron to talk to Mia, meaning Defendant Sisco, about these issues and that Sisco would have a treatment plan for him. 71. Lee did not disclose to Cameron that Sisco was a defrocked, unlicensed chiropractor with no legal authority to diagnose or treat the types of medical complaints made by Cameron. 72. Defendant Lee did not take a history from Cameron, did not perform a physical assessment, did not take his vitals and did not monitor his withdrawal. 73. During the next three months, Cameron was exposed to a continuing course of negligent and outrageous conduct perpetrated by the Defendants, including denial of medical and psychological care; repeated demoralization and humiliation; fraud; medical experimentation; and exposure to dangerous conditions and situations. 74. In essence, Cameron was not provided with any reasonable, appropriate or recognized addiction treatment or therapy. Instead, he and his family were bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars by Sisco and the other Defendants. 75. The very expensive amino acid treatments Cameron was supposed to receive and which was supposed to cure his addiction and cognitive deficits only made him more ill. 12

13 76. Despite multiple requests, Cameron was never told what was contained in the IV medicine bags, which were ostensibly ordered by the unlicensed Sisco and ratified by the only licensed physician, Lee. 77. Some of the IVs were started or initiated by Defendant Sisco, who is and was subject to a Cease and Desist Order from the State of Colorado that specifically forbids her from participating in the provision of IV treatments. 78. In addition to the IV amino acids, Aminokit employees also gave Cameron oral medications, including prescription Ambien, Klonopin, sleeping pills, prescription anti-anxiety medications and oral amino acids and hormones. 79. These medications were obtained from a drug cabinet at Aminokit s main office where various prescription medications including scheduled narcotics and anti-anxiety medications were kept together. The medications included unused medications from former Aminokit patients who had been discharged. 80. Upon information and belief, some or many of the medications taken from the cabinet were prescribed by Lee and filled at various pharmacies in the South Colorado Boulevard area. Cameron noticed that at least two prescription bottles bore his name. 81. Aminokit s agents and employees, including Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon, regularly accessed these medications and gave them to Cameron and other patients without a proper prescription and without proper medical supervision. In many cases, one Aminokit patient s medication would be taken from the cabinet and given to another Aminokit patient who did not have a prescription for that specific medication. 82. This improper administration of medications also took place at the Fairfield Inn, with the knowledge and consent of the Fairfield, who provided Defendants with patient room keys for the specific purpose of carrying out Aminokit s inpatient treatment program, which necessarily included the administration of medications. 83. Upon information and belief, multiple pharmacies were used in order for Aminokit, Sisco and Lee to escape scrutiny from a single pharmacy due to the fact that so many different prescriptions were being filled. 84. Brandon and Demetrius were also involved in purchasing illegal drugs using an Aminokit company vehicle. 85. On several occasions, Cameron and other Aminokit patients were taken on these drug purchases without their advanced knowledge, permission or cooperation. This was particularly damaging and confusing to Cameron, since Brandon and Demetrius were supposed to be part of his treatment team and since he was actually supposed to be in treatment for drug addiction. 13

14 86. Cameron s treatment was supposed to be performed by Defendant Thompson, who was called Dr. Denny by staff and patients, and who was held out as a medical doctor that specialized in addiction medicine. In fact, Thompson is a chiropractor. 87. Cameron was told and was under the impression that Thompson s services were included in Aminokit s fee. 88. Plaintiffs later found out that Thompson in fact accessed Plaintiffs credit card information without their knowledge and permission and proceeded to charge Plaintiffs over $7, without authorization. 89. These fees were not for addiction medicine services, but rather for non-medical, unnecessary, and unrequested services including astrology, star chart readings, bizarre shock treatments and chiropractic treatments. 90. Upon information and belief, Thompson saw several Aminokit patients at the same time and charged each patient as if he had seen them for the entire hour. 91. Thompson did not make or keep records of the services he provided to Cameron and in fact refused repeated attempts to provide documentation supporting his charges to Plaintiffs. 92. Thompson continued to bill for and receive credit card payments from Plaintiffs for these services into September, after Cameron had left Aminokit. 93. Cameron received no benefit from Thompson s purported chiropractic services, which were in fact fraudulently provided. 94. At some point after Cameron s admission to Aminokit and Fairfield, his room was changed without his knowledge, permission or authority. 95. Cameron was initially staying in a single room by himself. One day, after returning to the hotel following treatment at Aminokit, Cameron was informed that his belongings had been moved to another room and that he would now have a roommate. That roommate was Brandon. Fairfield was aware of and participated in the room change, and in fact Brandon s name and the Aminokit address is listed on Cameron s guest folio. 96. Since Brandon could not afford to pay for a room, Fairfield charged the entire amount to Plaintiffs credit card. 97. During Brandon s stay in Cameron s room, Brandon stole and misappropriated Cameron s property, including his wallet, his credit cards, his money and his digital camera. 14

15 98. In mid-july, Cameron was moved to another hotel near Cherry Creek because Defendant Sisco did not want Cameron to maintain contact with another Aminokit patient, Jane Doe, who had begun complaining to Cameron about Aminokit s inappropriate and damaging conduct. 99. Ultimately, because it was inconvenient to transport Cameron to Aminokit, Defendant Runnells had Cameron moved to a Marriott Courtyard On several occasions, Runnells barged into Cameron s Marriott Courtyard room without permission and without notice to harass, threaten and intimidate Cameron in regard to his continuing contact with Jane Doe On another visit, Runnels attempted to confiscate Cameron s cell phone to prevent him from calling Jane Doe Cameron was ultimately discharged from Aminokit on or about August 29, At the time of Cameron s discharge from Aminokit, Plaintiffs did not know and did not have reason to know of all or most of the relevant facts giving rise to the claims in this matter due to the fraudulent concealment of the Defendants In fact, Plaintiffs did not begin to put together the facts and circumstances of these claims until approximately November, As a result, Defendants are estopped from asserting any statute of limitations defenses to these claims and/or the claims did not accrue until November, 2012, which is when the facts giving rise to the claims were discovered under reasonable inquiry Defendants were paid significant sums of money by and on behalf of Plaintiffs. In particular: a) Aminokit was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 4, 2012; b) Aminokit was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 25, 2012; c) Aminokit was paid $ through a bank cashier s check on July 7, 2012; d) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $780.00; e) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $ ; f) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $870.00; g) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $ ; 15

16 h) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $945.00; i) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $785.00; j) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $ ; k) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on May 29, 2012, in the amount of $715.00; l) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 5, 2012, in the amount of $830.00; m) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 6, 2012, in the amount of $855.00; n) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 7, 2012, in the amount of $805.00; o) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 8, 2012, in the amount of $890.00; p) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 11, 2012, in the amount of $720.00; q) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 12, 2012, in the amount of $660.00; r) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 13, 2012, in the amount of $ ; s) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 14, 2012, in the amount of $830.00; t) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 15, 2012, in the amount of $470.00; u) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 16, 2012, in the amount of $925.00; v) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 18, 2012, in the amount of $830.00; w) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 19, 2012, in the amount of $505.00; x) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 19, 2012, in the amount of $365.00; y) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 21, 2012, in the amount of $805.00; z) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 22, 2012, in the amount of $ ; aa) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 26, 2012, in the amount of $535.00; bb) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 27, 2012, in the amount of $ ; cc) Aminokit deposited a bill into the United States Mail, addressed to Preferred Choice Insurance, on June 27, 2012, in the amount of $305.00; 16

17 dd) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on May 29, 2012; ee) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on May 31, ff) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 2, 2012; gg) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 7, 2012; hh) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 12, 2012; ii) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 17, 2012; jj) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 12, 2012 kk) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 21, 2012; ll) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 30, 2012; mm) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on July 3, 2012; nn) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on July 5, 2012; oo) Fairfield was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on July 17, 2012; pp) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on June 25, 2012; qq) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on July 18, 2012; rr) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on July 30, 2012; ss) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on August 14, 2012; tt) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on August 22, 2012; uu) Thompson was paid $ through an interstate wire credit card transaction on September 1, 2012; vv) Upon information and belief, Lee was paid by Aminokit on a flat-fee or monthly basis to provide care and treatment to Aminokit s patients, including Cameron, and to provide medical oversight in his position as the facility Medical Director; and ww) Upon information and belief, Sisco, as the owner of Aminokit, collected significant funds both directly and indirectly as a result of Cameron s treatment from Aminokit. 17

18 107. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Cameron has suffered and continues to suffer from upset, depression, loss of ability to function normally, loss of capacity to maintain employment, loss of hope for recovery, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of trust in mental healthcare providers, extreme emotional distress, pain and suffering and other noneconomic loss In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered past economic loss and will suffer economic loss in the future in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial. II. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENCE (as Against All Defendants, Including Professional Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision and Negligent Retention) By Plaintiff Cameron George only 109. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every averment set forth herein as if each and every averment were set forth verbatim herein. A. Statements of vicarious liability 110. Defendant Aminokit is vicariously responsible for the acts and omissions of all of its agents and employees, including, but not limited to, Sisco, Brandon, Demetrius, and Runnels Defendant Fairfield is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of all of its employees and agents including, but not limited to the desk staff, managers and administrators of Fairfield, including its Operations Manager, Jeremy Anderson Defendant Lee is vicariously liable for those he delegated his medical care and practice to, including, but not limited to Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon. B. Negligence of Defendant Aminokit 113. Aminokit owed Plaintiff the following duties, inter alia: a) A duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable and appropriate care informed by State and Federal laws as well as the common law; b) A duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable appropriate medical detoxification and addiction treatment services provided by duly licensed professionals, including medical professionals; c) A duty to provide Plaintiff with medications and treatments prescribed, monitored and supervised by a licensed physician; d) A duty to ensure that Aminokit s agents and employees, including, but not limited to, Sisco, Demetrius, Brandon and Thompson are background checked, vetted, trained, licensed and properly supervised; e) A duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable, effective and scientifically proven treatments and methods; 18

19 f) A duty to allow Plaintiff to know and understand treatment plan, and participate in treatment decisions; g) A duty to note and respond to patient concerns and complaints, without fear of adverse consequences, retaliation, or denial of care; h) A duty to avoid exposing Plaintiff to foreseeable harm; i) A duty to provide proper measures to protect Plaintiff from imminent selfharm following self-reported desire and intent; j) A duty to provide Plaintiff with medical detoxification in a safe inpatient hospital environment with appropriate medical, nursing and licensed staff supervision; k) A duty to provide Plaintiff with medications as prescribed by his physician; l) A duty to provide a therapeutic milieu that is supervised and provided by licensed, trained and background checked individuals; m) A duty to provide mental health therapy that comports with standards of care and that is provided by licensed, background checked and vetted individuals; n) A duty to allow Plaintiff access to the outside world through the use of phones and other communications, and a similar duty to avoid isolating Plaintiff; o) A duty to keep Plaintiff s private and confidential information safe from the public and from persons not entitled to such information; p) A duty to avoid exposing Plaintiff to foreseeable harm; q) A duty to avoid exposing Plaintiff to dangerous persons in its employ; and r) A duty to avoid exposing Plaintiff to boundary violations by having Plaintiff accompany Aminokit agents during drug deals or other illicit conduct Defendant Aminokit breached the above duties of care and otherwise acted negligent by, inter alia: a) Failing to provide Plaintiff with reasonable and appropriate medical detoxification and addiction treatment; b) Endangering Plaintiff s life and physical safety by preventing access to critical medical and psychological care, knowing this facility is not equipped for the level of treatment required; c) Assigning unlicensed, dangerous addicts to provide care and supervision to Plaintiff; d) By providing Plaintiff with drugs and medications not prescribed for him; e) By providing Plaintiff with useless, not scientifically proven treatments and medications, including the amino acids, star charting and chiropractic manipulations; f) Continuing to advise and collect payment for further treatment when it was clear that the treatment was ineffective and damaging; 19

20 g) By allowing Sisco, an unlicensed person with a history of fraud and an active Cease and Desist Order, to attempt to practice medicine on Plaintiff and to provide IV medications for Plaintiff; h) Aiding and abetting the illegal practice of medicine by unlicensed persons; i) Causing severe and lasting psychological harm through intentional or negligent abuse, isolation, and inadequate or damaging treatments; and j) By failing to keep accurate records of the treatments provided to Plaintiff Aminokit also engaged in the negligent hiring of Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon by hiring and appointing those persons to positions for which they were not qualified or licensed Aminokit further engaged in negligent supervision by engaging in the acts and omissions described above and by failure to supervise the unlicensed medical practice of Sisco, Brandon and Demetrius, as described in greater detail above Aminokit further negligently retained Sisco, Brandon and Demetrius by engaging in the acts and omissions described above and by keeping and retaining those individuals on staff when Defendant knew or should have known of their lack of qualifications and their conduct that was foreseeably harmful to Aminokit s patients, including Plaintiff. C. Negligence of Defendant Jonathan Lee 118. Defendant Lee, as Plaintiff Cameron George s treating physician, owed Plaintiff the following duties, inter alia: a) A duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable and appropriate medical care and treatment, including, but not limited to: medical detoxification; reasonable and appropriate assessment and physicals; reasonable and appropriate medication; and a reasonable and appropriate medical plan of care; b) Regular follow-up/monitoring of progress; c) A duty to honestly represent the capacity of the facility to provide adequate treatment for patient; d) A duty to ensure that Plaintiff would be safe in his treatment environment; e) A duty to ensure that Plaintiff s care was supervised and provided by licensed, trained and vetted individuals; f) A duty to ensure that Plaintiff was medically monitored for safety; and g) Coordination of care with all providers and staff 119. Defendant Lee, as Plaintiff s treating physician, breached the duties of due care he owed to Plaintiff by engaging in the acts and omissions described above, and by inter alia: a) Admitting Plaintiff to the Fairfield Inn, which Defendant knew was incapable of providing a safe medical environment for Plaintiff; 20

21 b) Failing to properly supervise Plaintiff s medical care; c) Prescribing medications for Plaintiff that Defendant reasonably knew or should have known would not ultimately be provided to Plaintiff or would otherwise be diverted to Aminokit staff for other patients; d) By failing to keep accurate and clear medical records on Plaintiff; e) By failing to develop a reasonable plan for Plaintiff s care and treatment; f) Refusing to meet with Plaintiff on an ongoing basis to determine condition and discuss treatment plans; g) Allowing insurance claims to be sent out for Plaintiff; h) By delegating his duties as a physician to unlicensed, untrustworthy and foreseeably dangerous persons, such as Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon; i) By allowing such persons to dictate all medical and treatment decisions, without professional oversight and without consultation with patient; j) By prescribing medications for Plaintiff that Defendant knew or should have known would be harmful or potentially harmful as administered by Aminokit s staff; and k) By allowing useless or inappropriate medications to be administered to Plaintiff in a hotel room Defendant Lee, as Medical Director of Aminokit, owed Plaintiff the following duties, inter alia: a) A duty to ensure that Aminokit provided a safe and effective addiction treatment program; b) A duty to ensure that Aminokit had reasonable and appropriate facilities for the medical detoxification of Plaintiff; c) A duty to ensure that Aminokit employed staff, clinicians and other professionals who were properly vetted, back ground checked, trained, supervised and licensed; d) A duty to ensure that the treatments that were provided by Aminokit were safe, reasonable and scientifically proven; e) A duty to provide reasonable and appropriate medical oversight for all of the Aminokit s patients, including Plaintiff; f) A duty to ensure psychological care and evaluation was provided, in addition to medical care; and g) A duty to provide reasonable treatment advice based on adequate knowledge and experience, and allow patient to discuss and participate in treatment plan Defendant Lee breached these duties of due care in his position as Aminokit s medical director by engaging in the acts and omissions described above and by, inter alia: 21

22 a) Allowing Sisco, an unlicensed individual with a history of fraud and with a cease and desist order on file, to act as the facility s de-facto medical provider and medical treater; b) By allowing Sisco and other unlicensed persons at Aminokit to dictate the types of medications prescribed by Lee as well as the recipients of such medications; c) By allowing Aminokit to operate its inpatient medical facility at The Fairfield Inn, which Defendant knew or should have known was dangerous, unlicensed and woefully inadequate for the provision of 24- hour medical care; d) By allowing and/or by delegating his medical practice to unlicensed, unvetted and dangerous persons, including Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon; e) By allowing the communication of medical and treatment information to patient s family to be carried out, with no oversight, by Demetrius, who not only had no medical training, but used this power to further his own agenda and that of Sisco and Aminokit; f) By allowing and tolerating medical treatments to be supervised by dangerous persons such as Demetrius and/or Brandon; g) By allowing and tolerating Sisco, Brandon and Demetrius to have access to patients room keys, wallets, credit cards, cell phones and other expensive personal effects, foreseeably knowing that this would result in theft or misuse; h) Not ensuring adequate psychiatric care as a critical part of treatment, in his role as medical director; i) By participating in or ratifying the plan that Brandon move in to Plaintiff s home; and j) By prescribing scheduled narcotics to Brandon, a known addict, at his request despite obvious conflict of interest and without any exam or doctor-patient relationship Defendant Lee further engaged in negligent supervision by delegating his duties as medical director to Sisco and by allowing Sisco, Demetrius and Brandon to provide medical care, treatments and medications to Aminokit patients, including Plaintiff Defendant Lee, as medical director, further engaged in negligent hiring and retention by allowing or acquiescing to the hiring and retention of Sisco, Brandon and Demetrius. D. Negligence of Defendant Fairfield 124. For the purposes of C.R.S , Plaintiff was at all times relevant an invitee of Fairfield, and came and stayed on Fairfield s premises for the benefit of the Fairfield, who charged significant monies to stay at its Fairfield Inn. 22