Austin v. Caswell Ctr.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedApril 25, 2003
DocketI.C. NO. TA-12771
StatusPublished

This text of Austin v. Caswell Ctr. (Austin v. Caswell Ctr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Austin v. Caswell Ctr., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

***********
In accordance with the directives of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and upon reconsideration of the evidence of record herein, the Full Commission enters the following Decision and Order:

The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties as

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

2. All parties have been correctly designated and there is no question as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

3. The alleged negligent employees of defendant were at all times relevant to this claim acting within the course and scope of their employment with defendant.

4. If plaintiff sustained damages as a result of negligence on the part of a named employee of defendant, the amount of those damages is $100,000.00.

5. The deposition testimony of Janet Roberts is admitted into evidence.

6. A set of six exhibits including the deposition of Dr. Engel, defendant's responses to discovery, defendant's policies regarding client's rights, annual habilitation plans for James Eugene Austin, James Price's personnel records and James Price's death certificate, collectively marked as Stipulated Exhibit Number Two, are admitted into evidence.

7. The medical records of James Eugene Austin from Dr. Engel and East Carolina University, marked as Stipulated Exhibit Number Three, are admitted into evidence.

***********
In accordance with the directives of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and based upon the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following additional

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff's decedent, James Eugene Austin, (hereinafter, "decedent") was born on February 7, 1956. As a result of illness during infancy, decedent sustained brain damage that left him severely mentally retarded. Decedent had the mental capacity of a five-year old. Decedent lived with his natural parents and a female sibling until he was eleven years of age. At that time, decedent required care and supervision twenty-four hours per day and his family was no longer able to provide this necessary care.

2. As a result of his mental impairment, decedent was unable to speak or make informed decisions. He communicated with grunts and gestures. He was able to eat, dress and toilet independently, although he needed to be reminded periodically to use the men's room.

3. Defendant, Caswell Center, is a state-operated institution providing care and treatment for patients with mental retardation. Defendant is located in Kinston, North Carolina. Caswell Center accepted responsibility for the care and custody of Decedent, James Eugene Austin, on January 17, 1967 when he was 11 years old and remained responsible for his care and custody until the date of his death. Decedent was housed at Caswell Center from January 17, 1967 until February 14, 1977, when defendant transferred him to Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro, North Carolina, another state facility. Cherry Hospital provides psychiatric treatment for individuals with mental retardation who also have a diagnosis of mental illness. Psychiatric care was not available at Caswell Center. Decedent remained in Cherry Hospital until March 1, 1977, when he was returned to Caswell Center.

4. Due to behavioral problems, decedent was again transferred to Cherry Hospital on March 28, 1978. From that date until November 27, 1986, decedent resided on the Cherry Hospital campus. For most of this time, he resided at the "Caswell Annex", which was so named because the majority of patients were transferred there from defendant's facility in Kinston. Decedent was transferred back to Caswell Center in Kinston on November 27, 1986.

5. There is conflicting evidence regarding the dates during which decedent resided at the Caswell Annex. In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals (No. COA99-1525), the Commission finds that defendant's verified answers to interrogatories estop defendant from denying its responsibility for decedent's care and custody while he was residing at Cherry Hospital.

6. Decedent was either physically or legally in the custody and care of Caswell Center from January 17, 1967 until the date of his death on July 28, 1993.

7. In 1991, decedent was diagnosed with "full blown" AIDS which caused his death two years later. Decedent had never been previously diagnosed as HIV positive. Decedent's immediate cause of death was pneumonia, which was a consequence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (hereinafter AIDS). Decedent contracted HIV by unprotected homosexual activity.

8. AIDS is an infectious disease that is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In 1991 when decedent was examined by Dr. Engel, he exhibited signs of repeatedly having been the receptor of rectal intercourse. This sexual activity was nonconsensual because decedent was mentally incapable of consenting. Decedent's medical records also disclosed injury to his penis in 1985 (blister), 1986 (teeth marks), and 1987 (teeth marks, abrasions).

9. Dr. Jimmy S. Woodall was Director of Caswell Center from 1986 through the date of hearing before the deputy commissioner on March 10, 1997. He testified that Dr. Rick Zahara preceded him in this position The director is responsible for setting the policies and philosophy of the agency and for the implementation of these policies through various supervisors and managers. The director is responsible for all employees.

10. At the time of the hearing before the Full Commission, Dr. William Cromer was Medical Director at Caswell Center. In this capacity, he was responsible for all patients there. He had been employed at Caswell since July, 1982. He had no contact with decedent that he was aware of until 1991. Dr. Cromer knew of the practices and policies at Caswell Center. He was aware of the sexual activity between patients which he described as heterosexual and homosexual.

11. Dr. Cromer testified that Caswell Center was also aware that many of their patients were more predatory than others. The predatory patients preyed on the less aware, or passive patients by engaging in homosexual activity with them. According to Dr. Cromer, some of the sexual activity among patients appeared to be consensual. Dr. Cromer disagreed with Dr. Engel's opinion that plaintiff was repeatedly raped while in the care and custody of Caswell because he believed rape meant the act was nonconsensual and involved violence and he stated that he saw no proof of violence in decedent's case.

12. Dr. Cromer testified that defendant's policy was to intervene, but not prevent sexual encounters. Intervention meant separating and counseling patients on appropriate behavior with the goal of changing their way of thinking.

13. Because decedent functioned at the level of a 5 year old and could not communicate except through grunts and gestures, he was unable to protect himself from sexual assaults of others and thus was completely dependent on his caregivers for his personal safety.

14. Decedent preferred to be alone. He needed to be encouraged and prompted to join in and participate in group activities. He was very hesitant in accepting physical touch from others. He would accept limited touch from select staff with which he was comfortable.

15. Decedent's level of functioning prevented him from understanding his rights, or consenting to sexual activity, or preventing others from preying on him. He could not benefit from counseling and he could not make a conscious decision to engage in consensual sex.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cucina v. City of Jacksonville
530 S.E.2d 353 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Zophy v. State
27 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Austin v. Caswell Ctr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-caswell-ctr-ncworkcompcom-2003.