Stanley v. Spurwink Svs., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-I0-337 g f( !;'G .-" ( Ll, \ ) . i I I / DOROTHY STANLEY, by her parent and legal guardian Laurie Stanley, Plaintiff, ~. ~)i~~J' v. *~,c.,O SPURWfNK SERVICES, I~q\(}(>~,~'\}\\ :!..t{::- ~?:>' .~ to /".. V ~~~.t·· . ,~,"13~/ ~~ ~{} rfj;, ORDER ON MOTION FOR DISMISSAL .'\ \.) (,. . '(./\ r'" ""'....., .~<. \) a'{,,~ ~.~." Plaintiff Dorothy Stanley, by her parent ,md legal guardian Lauric Stanley, brought this multi-count complaint alleging that the plaintiff was raped by tvvo men due to the negligence of five of Spurwink Serv~ces' employees. Defendant Spurwink Services, Inc., argues that Ms. Stanley's claims are subject to the provisions of the Maine Health Security Act, and moves to dismiss this action because the plaintiff has not filed a mandatory notice of claim and because her claims arc time barred. BACKGROUND Ms. Stanley's complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff Dorothy Stanley is a twenty-two year old woman with developmental disabilities. (Compl. ~r 6.) She has been diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder, bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, and mental retardation. (Compl. ~[ 6.) In 2002, when Ms. Stanley was age fourteen, her emotional and psychological development was commensurate wi th that of a child between the ages of four and six. (Compl. (rr 7.) Dr. Charles B. Whitehead evaluated Ms. St,lllley and wrote: "Although she is 1 emotionally extremely immature, her physical development is consistent with her chronological age, and she is seeking to live a lifestyle (adolescent) that she is entirely incapable of reasonably negotiating." (CompI. <[[ 8.) Ms. Stanley was living in a therapeutic group home in Biddeford in the years of 2003 and 2004. (Compl. err 9.) Starting in the 2003-2004 school year, the Biddeford School Department placed Ms. Stanley at the Cummings School, operated by Spurwink Services,' for dLly treabllent. 2 (Compl. ~19; M. Dismiss Ex. Cat 1.) Before she began attending the school, Spurwink WLIS made aware of Ms. Stanley's "risk of elopement in the community" and that sexual abuse would likely result if she did escape into the community without supervision. (CompI. 9f 10.) On January 26, 2004, Ms. Stanley's "Pupil Evaluation Team" (PET) met to discuss and develop an Individual Service Plan for her while at the school. (CompI. 9f~! 11, 13.) At this meeting, the PET discussed the risks involved wi th transporting Ms. Stanley by bus from her group home to the Cummings School. (Comp!. 9111.) The Individual Service Plan describes the appropriate level of supervision for Ms. StLlnley as: Eyesight supervision, within car shot due to inability to maintLlin safety. Due to history of trauma and sexualized behavior, [Ms. Stanley] is not to be left alone with male staff and it is recommended in any situation to have two staff availClble due to I Ms. StClnley's] quick escCllCltion to aggressive behaviors when upset. The parties refer to the "Cummings School" Clnd the "Spurwink School" interchangeably. 2 The complaint quotes extensively from what it labels as the Jellluary 26,2004 Spurwink School Individual Service P1Cln. The defendClnt submitted a copy of this plLln for the court's considerCltion wi th its motion to dismiss. The court mClY consider the plm) without converting the motion into one for summary judgment because the cornplaint refers to this document Clnd there is no question CIS to its authenticity. Moody ZJ. Stnle Lirlllor ti Lot/ery COl/llll'Il, 2004 ME 20, 9f(]! 9-11, 843 A.2d 43, 47-48. 1 2 (CampI. <If 13; M. Dismiss Ex. C at 1.) Two days later another meeting was held to discuss Ms. Stanley's service plan. (CompJ. 9114.) At that meeting, the director of Ms. Stanley's group home wrote the following: [Ms. Stanley] has had several incidents of exiting off the school bus and eloping in to the community. This has put her at risk. The school department has placed two aides on the bus, however if [Ms. Stanley] gets off the bus, the aides are not permitted to leave the bus. The Team does not feel that the bus is a safe situation for [Ms. Stanley] at this tirne and feel that [Ms. Stanleyl needs to have a safer situation. At this time, [Ms. Stanley] is not happy about going to school with staff, however her Team feels thLlt her unsafe behavior must be LI priority. (Compi. err 14.) Prior to Novernber 2004, on several occLlsions Ms. Stanley did leave or Llttempt to leave the Cummings School's grounds and had to be pursued or restrained by Spurwink staff. (Compi. err 15.) On November 29,2004, Ms. Stanley rode the bus from her group home to the Cunll11ings School per her uSl1L11 routine. (CampI. 9[16.) She WLIS sixteen years old at this time. (Com pI. 91 16.) At approximately R:OO Cl.m., she exited the bus at the Cummings School where she was met by Robert Cooke and Aaron Sawyer, two educationCll technicians employed by Spurwink. (Comp1. 9117.) Mr. Cooke and Mr. Sawyer were to rneet the bus when it arrived and ensure thClt Ms. StClnley rernained on school grounds under close supervision. (Comp1. 9f lR.) According to Spurwink's Incident Report, on exiting the bus Ms. StClnley informed Mr. Cooke thClt she WClS "not going to schooL" (Compl. 9119.) She then left the school's grounds on foot, trLlveling in the direction of Washington Avenue. (CampI. err 19.) Neither Mr. Cooke nor Mr. SClwyer follov\'ed Ms. Ste1nley off the property. (Comp1. 9120.) InsteCld, Mr. Cooke borrowedMr. SClwyer's cell phone to Celli Wayne Holden. (CampI. <Jl20.) Mr. Holden WLIS employed by Spurwink as a teacher at the Cummings School, and is listed ClS one of the 3 individuals who Clttended the JanuClry 26,2004 meeting to discuss Ms. StClnley's fndivlduCll Service PlCln. (Compl. 9I 20; M. Dismiss Ex. C at 1.) Ms. StClnley could be seen crossing OceCln Avenue in the direction of Washington Avenue by the time Mr. Holden Clrrived outside the school. (Compl. 9I 21.) Mr. Holden, like Mr. Cooke Clnd Mr. Sawyer, declined to folIow Ms. StClnley off the grounds. (Compl. (Il 22.) Instead, he instructed Mr. Sawyer to cClll Robin T-ferrick <1ssociate director of the Cummings School, and Piper Carey, a generalist Clt the school. (CompJ. 91 22.) }'.1s. Herrick and Ms. Carey were both employed by Spurwink, and Ms. Herrick had Clttended the JelllUClrY 26,2004 meeting with Mr. Holden. (Compl. (II 22; M. Disrniss Ex. C Clt 1.) While the CCllls were being mClde, Ms. StClnley could be seen entering the CigClrette Shopper, a retail operCltion on the far side of Washington Avenue. (Compl. (II 23.) By the time Ms. Herrick joined the men outside the school, Ms. StClnley WclS no longer visible. (Compl. (j[ 24.) Ms. Herrick and Mr. Holden left the school in a car to search for Ms. Stanley, but were unable to find her Clnd were instructed to return to the school Clfter Cl few minutes. (CompJ. (119125-26.) Ms. Carey called the police, Clnd Ms. StClnley's mother (Compl. WclS (n 27.) Ms. StClnley reClppeared notified at approximCltely R:15 Cl.111. Clt her group home in Biddeford the next dCly, November 30, 2004. (COlT1pl. 91 2R.) On her return, Ms. StClnley infornlCd the group home stClff that she hCld been sexually assClulted, and later reported two sessions of orClI and vClgini11 penetration by two different men, with a shower between the two events. (Compl. 919129-30.) An eXClmination at Maine MedicCl] Center confirmed that .she had been i1.ssauHcd, and reveClled thClt her left nipple hCld been torn. (Compl. 91131-32.) Ms. Stcl1l[ey h<ls exhibi ted signs of psychologicCl1 dClmClgc 4 clS cl resu H of this incident. (Compl. 9f(JI35-36.) On July 28, 2010, Ms. Stanley filed a five-count c01l1plaint agllinst Spurwink Services to recover for damllges llrising out of the November 29, 2004 incident. DISCUSSION "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heher v. Lllccrne-ill-Mn;lIc VilLnge Corp., 2000 ME 137, 9f 7,755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfec v. Cole, tS37 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)). The court examines "the complaint in the light most bvorable to the plainti ff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or llileges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." rd. (quoting McAfec, 637 A.2d at 465). "For purposes of a 12(b)(0) motion, the 111aterial allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." McAfcc, tS37 A.2d at 465. "Dis1l1issal is warranted when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that [s]he might prove in support of [her1 claim." {o!lnIl5011 v. OllllllillgtOll, 2001 ME 109, 9f 5, 785 A.2d 1244, I 245-4tS. Spurwink Services moves to dislTliss Ms. StClnley's claims as being time bClrred by the statute of limitations contClined in the MCline r--IeCllth Security Act (MJ-TSA). The MHSA requires aJ1 Clctions by cl minor for professional negligence to "be commenced within 0 years after the cause of action ,1CCrLteS or within 3 ye,1rs Clfter the minor reaches the age of mi1jority, whichever first occurs." 24 M.R.S. ~ 2902 (2004). Ms. Stanley's Individual Service Plan indicates that she was c " born on April II, 1988, meaning thClt the she turned eighteen on Apri I II, 2006. (M. Dismiss Ex. c:. at 1.) The stCltute of limitations would have run on any cl'lims subject to the MHSA on April 11, 2009, more than a year before this action was initiated. s The MHSA's I/[s]tatute of limitations for health care providers and health care practitioners" applies to "[a 1cti ems for professionCl] negligence .... " 24 M.R.S. § 2902. The IClw defines an "[a1ction for professional negligence" to mean "any action for damages for injury ... against any health C<1re provider, its agents or employees ... whether b<1sed upon tort or breach of contrClct or otherwise, <1rising out of the provision or fClilure to provide health care services." 24 M.R.S. § 2502(6) (2004). The Law Court h,lS described this definition as "very bro<lCl1y worded and all-encompassing," reflecting "(1 1cgislCltive intent that the IvIHSA 'occupy the field with regard to Clctions against health care providers.'" Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME 94, ~I~r 9,13,902 A.2d R30, R33 (quoting Musk v. Nelson, 647 A.2d '1198, 1201 (Me. 1994)). A "[h ]e<1lth care provider" is "<1ny hospit<1l, clinic, nursing home, or other facility in which skilled nursing C<1re or medicClI services are prescribed by or performed under the generClI di recti on of persons licensed to practice medicine ... in this State <111d which is licensed or othenvise <1uthorized by the 1<1,'vs of this State." 24 M.R5. § 2502(2) (2004). This definition includes bcilities th<1t tre,lt mental illness. Sal/llders, 200(l ME 94, (II 14,902 A.2d at R34. Spurwink Clrgues th,lt it is ZI health care provider within the meaning of the statute. At the time of the incident, the Spurwink School did hold <1 Ment<11 Health Agency license from Maine's Department of He<11th <1m] Human Services.:> (M. Dismiss Ex. F.) This docs not, however, show th<1t "skilled nursing cClre or medic<1l services" vvere in f<1et being "prescribed by or performed under the general direction" of licen.sed medic<1] pr<1ctitiollers <1t the school. Furthermore, the compl<1int <1nd the public documents pl<1ced in the record do :> The license is <1 public document th<1t lll<1y be considered on <1 motion to dismiss. l'vloody, 2004 ME 20, ~1(lr 9-11, K43 A2d <1t 47-4R. (l not show that Ms. St(mley was placed in the Cummings School to receive such care and treatment. On a motion to dismiss, the court's review is narrow and deferential to the plaintiff. It would be premature to determine conclusively whether the Cummings School was a health care provider or whether Ms. Stanley's presence there was connected to the provision of health care services, based solely the complaint and few extraneous documents properly before the court at this stage of proceedings. The entry is: Defendant Spurwink Services' rnotion to DATE:~201i 7 LAURIE STANLEY (PARENT & GUARDIAN OF DOROTHY STANLEY) VS SPURWINK SERVICES INC UTN:AOCSsr -2010-0070819 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2010-00337 01 0000001195 . .;.;L. .;.;A-,-V0..:. . : :.cIE:: : . .r-f--:MA=R..;;;;K-'---415 CONGRESS STREET PO BOX 4600 PORTLAND ME 04112-4600 F SPURWINK SERVICES INC DEF 02 0000009777 .=.,D.; ;.O.; ;.UG.=.,L=A;,; ;S:fL-.,;T:.,:H.:.;O;;.:.MA=S;.....=:L:........ . 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085 I LAURIE STANLEY (PARENT & GUARDIAN) PL F DOROTHY STANLEY PL _ RTND 08/09/2010 _ RTND RTND 07/12/2010 07/12/2010
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
