Back in 2010, the Children’s Care Hospital and School in Sioux Falls was accused by a family of “improperly restraining an autistic student.” As a result, the family of the student, a boy named Ben, filed a lawsuit against the school “for damages they claim the facility caused their son Ben while he was a full-time resident there for about seven months in 2010.” According to the family, Ben suffered lasting emotional distress and negligence. However, earlier today a jury ruled that the children’s hospital and school was not “negligent in its care and did not cause the student lasting emotional distress.”
Back in 2010, the Children’s Care Hospital and School in Sioux Falls was accused by a family of “improperly restraining an autistic student.” As a result, the family of the student, a boy named Ben, filed a lawsuit against the school “for damages they claim the facility caused their son Ben while he was a full-time resident there for about seven months in 2010.” According to the family, Ben suffered lasting emotional distress and negligence. However, earlier today a jury ruled that the children’s hospital and school was not “negligent in its care and did not cause the student lasting emotional distress.”
The lawsuit itself was filed by Ben’s parents, Neil and Debbie Graff, shortly after the 2010 incident. Their son, now 24-years-old, “was diagnosed with global developmental delays and autism at a young age, and was receiving scholarly and skills-development help as a resident at Children’s Care, now known as LifeScape,” according to court documents.
In the lawsuit, the Graffs argued that staff at the Children’s Care Hospital and School “used a prone restraint on Ben more than 130 times from March to September 2010, sometimes multiple times per day or for hours at a time.” For those who don’t know, a prone restraint “involves bringing a person to the floor face-down and holding that person’s arms and legs until they calm down.” Being forced into such restraints caused Ben “lasting emotional trauma, PTSD and distrust of adults,” according to his parents. Additionally, they claim he “refused to leave their home for months after he was discharged from the facility.”
On top of that, the parents argued that the staff at the facility “didn’t follow restraint policy and didn’t adequately inform the Graffs of prone restraint use.” Also, staff members allegedly failed in following Children’s Care’s restraint policy that requires “a nurse to supervise every restraint and for a nurse to check the student who was restrained within an hour of the restraint.” An attorney for the family showed evidence to the jury that included “examples when those requirements weren’t met.” Eventually, even the defense admitted that the facility violated the policy.
During the court proceedings, employees of the facility pushed back against the Graff’s allegations and argued that every time Ben was restrained was an “emergency situation and was necessary to keep Ben and other students and staff safe.” Despite his episodes, many employees even “testified they enjoyed having Ben at the school and that he was a smiley, happy kid who enjoyed giving high-fives.” Because of this, they added that it was taxing and upsetting whenever they had to restrain him. One of the employees who testified was Jamie Richardson. When discussing the case she said, “Nobody wants to have to do a restraint with a child.”
As the jury read it’s verdict, Ben and his family and friends “sank into tears,” and some even left the courtroom. After being polled, it was discovered that all but one member of the jury had voted in favor of Children’s Care. When commenting on the jury’s decision, LifeScape CEP Ann Reich McFarland said, “We’re proud of our staff and we’re proud of our mission and everything we do…It’s validating the facts were listened to.”
Sources:
Jury votes in favor of Children’s Care in prone restraint lawsuit
Former Children’s Care employees: No harm done to autistic child in restraints
Join the conversation!