IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
_________________________________________
)
DENZIL LAWRENCE, ) Case No. 19-cv-5078
)
Plaintiff, ) Hon. Mary M. Rowland,
) presiding
v. )
)
JAMES P. CORCORAN, individually, ) JURY DEMAND
as Statewide Forensic Medical )
Director for the Illinois )
Department of Human Services, )
Medical Administrator III, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
WITH REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Denzil Lawrence,
by and through his attorneys, the Law Offices of Kretchmar and Cecala, P.C.,
with his complaint against the above-named Defendant and requests trial by
jury, and in support of his Complaint states as follows.
II. JURISDICTION AND
VENUE
1. This
action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and it is brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The
jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and
2201.
2. This
case is instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the judicial district in
which all relevant events and omissions occurred and in which Defendants
maintain offices and/or reside.
III. PARTIES
3. At
all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Denzil Lawrence was a resident of the
State of Illinois and a legal resident of the United States of America.
4. At
all times relevant hereto, Defendant James Patrick Corcoran (“Defendant” or “Corcoran”) was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen
of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in his capacity
as an officer employed by Illinois Department of Human Services. Corcoran is sued individually for
actions and omissions taken under color law while working in his official
capacity as a senior administrator of Elgin Mental Health Center and/or
consultant in the Illinois Department of Human Services.
IV. BACKGROUND FACTUAL SUMMARY AND GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION AND REASONABLE BELIEF
5. Plaintiff
was adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) in the Circuit Court
of Will County, on charges of arson and criminal damage to property in
February, 2018. He was had been committed
to the custody of the Illinois Department of Human Services (“IDHS”) for
inpatient mental health treatment, initially at Chester Mental Health Center (“CMHC”)
as unfit to stand trial on September 26, 2017, and subsequently beginning
August 18, 2018, he was held at Elgin Mental Health Center (EMHC). His Thiem
date (the date beyond which his involuntary NGRI commitment could not be
constitutionally continued) was March 20, 2019.
6. While
he was committed at CMHC, Plaintiff took psychotropic medications but
experienced unacceptable weight gain as a side effect. Ultimately, after researching risks and
benefits of medications, and after substantial remission of his earlier
psychotic symptoms, he made an informed choice to try to recover more fully
from mental illness without drugs.
He never ruled out medical treatment, including with psychotropic drugs,
in the event that he again became symptomatic. His psychiatrist at CMHC did not subsequently insist on
Plaintiff being prescribed any particular prescription medication.
7. When
he was transferred to EMHC in August 2018, he was assigned to the psychiatrist
Dr. Richard Malis. Dr. Malis
initially suggested (and the Plaintiff tentatively agreed) to take quetiapine,
an anti-psychotic drug, after giving him a “likely” diagnosis “in the spectrum
between delusional disorder and schizophrenia.”
8. By
early September 2018, the Plaintiff has lost confidence in Dr. Malis and
elected not to take psychotropic medications. He began to carefully document his disagreements with EMHC
staff, made various attempts to obtain relevant records, and filed many
specific written complaints with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
9. Despite
a handful of minor “incidents” involving disagreements with peers or staff on
the clinical units at EMHC, none of which involved any physical altercations or
violence, monthly Treatment Plan Reports consistently stated between August
2018 and March 2019, that the Plaintiff was making some progress, cooperating
with unit rules, and attending recommended therapy groups.
10. During
his entire time at EMHC, the Plaintiff was never considered to be in need of
emergency involuntary medication, restraint or seclusion, either for his own or
anyone else’s protection.
11. Throughout
his time at EMHC, up until mid-March of 2019, clinicians on the Plaintiff’s
treatment teams were collaborating with him to develop relapse prevention and
aftercare plans wherein he would be residing safely in the community with his
parents in Florida and receiving any needed outpatient psychiatric and
substance abuse treatment through a local Veterans’ Administration
facility. The expectation that he
would be leaving EMHC on his Thiem
date was entirely implicit and apparently unquestioned.
12. On
or about March 13, 2019, exactly one week before the Plaintiff had to be
released, unknown to the Plaintiff a decision was purportedly made by the
Plaintiff’s treatment team psychiatrist, Dr. Vikramjit Gill, M.D., to file an
involuntary civil commitment petition in Kane County Circuit Court (“Petition”),
alleging (in summary) that the Plaintiff was mentally ill and thereby dangerous
to himself or others, meeting the definition in Section 1-119 of the Illinois
Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, 405 ILCS 5/1-119, of a
“person subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient basis.”
13. Subsequently
on March 20, 2019, without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, some hours after the Plaintiff should legally have
been released, the threatened Petition was in fact filed, and the Plaintiff was
held at EMHC, rather than released.
14. Plaintiff’s
father had actually traveled to Elgin from Florida to pick him up and take him
home, fully expecting that his son would be released on his Thiem date of March 20, 2019, according
to the long-established plan.
15. The
Petition itself, alleging that the Plaintiff was a “person subject to
involuntary admission on an inpatient basis” was signed by Melissa Perkins, the
Plaintiff’s clinical social worker on N Unit at that time.
16. The
petition was accompanied by two certificates, one of Dr. Vikramjit Gill, M.D.,
and one of the Defendant James P. Corcoran, intended to certify pursuant to
Section 3-702 of the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code
[405 ILCS 5/3-702] that the Plaintiff was subject to involuntary admission on
an inpatient basis and containing other information.
17. On
information and belief, Defendant James P. Corcoran was the actual instigator
of the false involuntary civil commitment petition against the Plaintiff. Corcoran exerted undue influence upon
social worker Perkins and psychiatrist Dr. Gill, to file and certify the
petition at the last possible minute.
As a Medical Administrator III and Statewide Forensic Medical Director,
he was their boss, and he was in a powerful position to negatively impact or
even end their careers as state mental health professionals. But for Corcoran’s undue influence over
Gill and Perkins, the civil commitment petition against the Plaintiff would not
have been filed, and he would have been released on March 20, 2019. As a direct
result of the false Petition, the Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned for a period
lasting from March 20, 2019 for a period of ninety days, lasting until his
release from EMHC after the falsely
filed Petition was dismissed on June 20, 2019 in the state
court.
18. On
information and belief, Dr. Corcoran is well known to be unreasonably
prejudiced against forensic mental patients who decide to exercise their rights
to refuse psychotropic medication, even when such decisions are based on legal
and competent free choice, fully informed of risks and benefits. He has expressed opinions and directly
advised patients that if they do not comply with the recommendations of
orthodox American psychiatrists employed by the State of Illinois (including
taking of prescribed psychotropic medication), or do not convincingly profess
strong belief in the diagnoses given to them by orthodox American psychiatrists
employed by the State of Illinois, they should not and will not, if he has
anything to say about it, be released from involuntary commitment.
19. On
information and belief, one psychiatrist at EMHC who is most loyal and
supportive of Defendant Corcoran’s points of view is Dr. Richard Malis, the
Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist who prescribed psychotropic medications.
20. The
Plaintiff, a well-educated East African immigrant who served honorably in the
United States military in a combat role in Afghanistan, not only successfully
refused to take psychiatric drugs, but also committed the affront of refusing
to accept Dr. Richard Malis as his psychiatrist, and subsequently Plaintiff was
able to fully recover drug-free and obtain the substantial collaboration of his
clinical treatment team toward his release from EMHC.
21. On
information and belief, Defendant Corcoran has directly, indirectly or
impliedly threatened both Dr. Vikramjit Gill and social worker Melissa Perkins
in the past, suggesting that they could suffer unfavorable employment
consequences should they fail to effectively coerce their patients to take
psychiatric drugs and profess full belief in their orthodox diagnoses.
22. In
short, anyone, patient or employee, who does not toe Defendant Corcoran’s line
in the forensic mental health system of the Illinois Department of Human
Services, or who gives any impression that they do not adequately respect his
status or his orthodox mental health culture, is threatened with negative
consequences. The Plaintiff
suffered retribution born of Defendant Corcoran’s unlawful coercion in
violation of the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff when Defendant Corcoran
used fear of retribution perpetrated against both patients and staff who do not
comply with his illegal orders. Vikramjit
Gill and Melissa Perkins were credibly threatened with similar retribution and
acted from self protection.
V.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
False imprisonment, denial of due process
of law, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Under the Fourth and the
Fourteenth Amendment to
the
Constitution of the United States
23. Plaintiff
hereby incorporates Paragraphs 5-22, as if set forth here in their entirety.
24. Plaintiff
was in custody and under the control of Defendant during and at all times
described in this Complaint.
25. At
all times described in this Complaint, Plaintiff was an unarmed, defenseless
male and disabled person, such that he was no match for the trained and
sophisticated Defendant, who was an experienced mental health professional with
custodial authority over the Plaintiff as an educated and licensed as a medical
doctor specializing in psychiatry.
26. All of the described acts and/or
omissions by the Defendant were intentional, knowing, willful, wanton,
malicious and/or in reckless in disregard for the Plaintiff’s federally
protected rights and welfare, and these acts were done with deliberate
indifference by the Defendants, acting
under color of state law.
27. With deliberate indifference to the rights
of citizens to be free from false imprisonment, Defendant ordered, encouraged,
tolerated, ratified, and acquiesced to a dangerous environment of psychological
brutality through the false imprisonment of the disabled, and other
deprivations of essential, fundamental humanity under auspices of “mental
health treatment” by:
a. Falsly alleging that Plaintiff was mentally ill, filing
false court documents including coercion of other subordinate staff
in filing a civil commitment petition to force Plaintiff to
continue to be imprisoned in the Elgin Mental Heath Center
while also failing to subject himself or his staff sufficient
training or supervision with respect to the constitutional
limitations on the incarceration and false imprisonment
of patients, especially the Plaintiff;
b. failing to adequately punish unconstitutional false imprisonment
of patients, especially the Plaintiff;
c. ordering and tolerating the false imprisonment of patients, especially
the Plaintiff;
d. failing to properly or neutrally investigate whether his own
actions
and actions which he ordered others to take would create
the false imprisonment of patients, especially the Plaintiff;
and,
e. ordering, tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements
among the staff, investigators and the police to discourage
proper investigation and cover up crimes and illegal
abuse in such situations.
28. On information
and belief, Defendant ordered and/or permitted staff members at the Facility,
under a “mental health” pretense, to falsely imprison disabled individuals when
such activities are unnecessary, unjustified and contrary to any conceivable
standard as “treatment”. Defendant
also coerced staff or failed or refused to supervise and train staff in the
appropriate constitutional implications and limits on false imprisonment,
despite knowing that these staff are critical to the protection of the
constitutional rights of the patients, and therefore may create a significant
risk of injury to the public who are patients at Elgin Mental Health Center,
especially the Plaintiff.
29. Under a pretense and with the cynical, false justification
of “encouraging adherence” to treatment recommendations, the Defendant used
tactics of coercion, false imprisonment and mental abuse to punish and threaten
patients at the EMHC to establish a brutal and dehumanizing environment of
control, instead of collaborating and rationally explaining benefits and risks
of treatment in the spirit of their legal obligations under informed consent
and legal and moral obligation to provide real help to the Plaintiff.
30. Under
a pretense and with the cynical, false justification of “encouraging insight”
into mental illness, the Defendant used false imprisonment to punish and
threaten patients at the Facility, especially the Plaintiff,
into robotic “lip service” and enforced, totalistic faith in the orthodoxy of
mental-illness-as-brain-disease, instead of rationally explaining any actual,
existing science in the field of aberrant human behavior, cognition and emotion
to the patients, especially the Plaintiff.
31. The more Defendant Corcoran,
habitually resorted to coercion and false imprisonment to obtain what he called
“treatment adherence” and “insight” from patients, the more dependent he became
on such tactics, and the more he lost any abilities he might have had, which
courts and the public naturally expect him to employ, as a doctor and healer.
32. On
information and belief, Defendant actively worked to find no fault with staff
conduct, and to assure that no fault is found by any outside investigators, so
long as any story at all is offered by staff in response to a patient
complaint, regardless of how incredible such response is wherein the Defendant,
willfully failed to prevent the ongoing false imprisonment of the Plaintiff.
33. Defendant
routinely ratifies, acquiesces, rubber stamps, and tolerates malicious
collusive conduct and unconstitutional actions of staff by routinely ignoring
serious complaints of false imprisonment and other corrupt acts against
patients, especially the Plaintiff, and by encouraging fabrication of evidence
by the staff.
34. As a direct and
proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff has been
substantially injured. These
injuries include, but are not limited to, loss of constitutional and federal
rights, loss of normal good family relations, loss of income, physical
injuries, physical and mental impairments, great pain and emotional distress,
and/or aggravation of pre-existing conditions, and ongoing special damages for
medically/psychologically related treatment necessitated by the
unconstitutional and brutal concerted conduct of the Defendant.
35. The Plaintiff
now suffers from these injuries, with an inability to consistently live a
normal life free from the trauma caused by the very staff charged with
responsibility for his treatment or rehabilitation.
36. The Plaintiff
also suffers persisting emotional damage the extent of which has not yet been
fully ascertained. Plaintiff
continues to suffer ongoing emotional distress, with significant stress related
symptoms.
37. Plaintiff is
also entitled to punitive damages on all claims against the individual
Defendants personally, to redress their willful, malicious, wanton, reckless
and fraudulent conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff
prays that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant and grant:
A. compensatory
and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress,
humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims
allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional
limit;
B. economic
losses on all claims allowed by law;
C. punitive
damages on all claims allowed by law against the Defendant and in an
amount to be determined at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limit;
D. attorneys’
fees and costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, including
expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;
E. pre-
and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate;
F. Court-ordered
equitable and injunctive relief from all contact or communication
by the Defendant; and
G. Any further relief that this Court deems just
and proper, and any other appropriate
relief at law and equity.
PLAINTIFF
REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY.
Respectfully
submitted,
__/s/
S. Randolph Kretchmar
S.
Randolph Kretchmar
One
of the Attorneys for the Plaintiff
The Law Offices of Kretchmar
& Cecala, P.C.
1170 Michigan Avenue, Wilmette,
IL 60091
847-370-5410
No comments:
Post a Comment