UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David S. Young and Joan E. Young )

as Guardians of the Person and Estate of )

Jonathan Matthew Young )

v. ) Docket No:

Lakeview NeuroRehabilitation Center, Inc. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COME David S. Young and Joan E. Young as Guardians of the Person and Estate

of Jonathan Matthew Young, and complain against Lakeview NeuroRehabilitation Center, Inc.

and say:

1. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs , David S. Young and Joan E. Young are Guardians of the Person and

Estate of their son, Jonathan Matthew Young ("Jonathan"), under the law of the State of

Pennsylvania. They are residents of the State of Pennsylvania and reside at 464 Ridge Avenue,

Ephrata, PA 17222-2559.

2. Defendant, Lakeview Rehabilitation Center, Inc. ("Lakeview"), is a New

Hampshire corporation with an actual street and mailing address of 101 Highwatch Road,

Effingham Falls, NH 03814. Its registered agent is John V. Daly of One New Hampshire Ave.,

Suite 350, Portsmouth, NH 03801.

II. JURISDICTION

3. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 USC 1332(a). The

plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Pennsylvania. The defendant is a resident and citizen of

New Hampshire. The amount in controversy is in excess of $1,000,000. plus interest and costs.

III. VENUE

4. Venue is proper in New Hampshire under 28 USC 1391(a). Jurisdiction is

founded on diversity of citizenship. The defendant is located in the State of New Hampshire.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Case 1:06-cv-00475-PB Document 1 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 5
5. Jonathan is an incapacitated person residing at the plaintiffs' home and under the

plaintiffs ' care in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. Jonathan' s date of birth is January 3 , 1972. His present

age is 34 years.

6. In December, 2003, defendant took responsibility for the care and treatment of

Jonathan at defendant's rehabilitation facility in Effingham Falls, New Hampshire with the

commitment and undertaking of improving Jonathan' s care and condition and his ability to live

and function at home.

7. On or about December 21 , 2003, defendant, which was responsible for the care

and treatment of Jonathan, disregarded its care and responsibility for Jonathan and lost sight and

control over him, losing him into the wilderness where he was later recovered by the New

Hampshire Fish and Game Department in a near death condition.

8. Defendant failed to supervise or oversee Jonathan, misled him into thinking that

he had to leave, and is responsible for the episode when he left defendant on his own and got lost

in the woods, inadequately dressed, in midwinter . He was hypothermic when found and might

have perished if he had been out there much longer. The crisis was a turning point in his

downhill deterioration under defendant' s care. This event alone is a serious breach of

defendant' s duty of care with significant adverse consequences.

9. Defendant thereafter maintained control over Jonathan until he was removed from

its care by plaintiffs in October 2005 . Earlier in 2005, defendant was informed by Jonathan's

insurer that it was removing health coverage and revoking coverage for earlier time periods at

which point defendant endeavored to compel Jonathan to be discharged in inappropriate ways

and with inappropriate provisions.

10. When Jonathan was released from defendant to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical

Center upon the direction of plaintiffs and finally left defendant, he came with significant

immediate problems that indicated a serious lack of care at defendant. He was weak and

emaciated, had lost 60 pounds, had dental problems, was toxic on lithium, and was not urinating

properly.

11. The care and treatment rendered to Jonathan at the facilities he was in, after

leaving the care of defendant, have done for him what defendant was supposed to do, restoring

him to a condition where he can live satisfactorily at home, which he is now doing. This

demonstrates beyond dispute that defendant both misdiagnosed and mistreated him. Defendant's

advocacy that he be committed to a psychiatric facility where he would be warehoused for life

without treatment was totally inconsistent with his condition and needs and defendant's

responsibility.

12. Defendant chose to serve as a warehouse for Jonathan as long as the insurance

payments continued, giving him no treatment except an inappropriate level of medication. As

Case 1:06-cv-00475-PB Document 1 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 5
soon as the insurance company questioned whether he was being treated, defendant wanted to

dump him and made considerable efforts in that regard. Most of his subsequent treatment that

has led to his rehabilitation has been paid for by insurance. Defendant's bills have subsequently

been substantially paid by insurance.

13. Upon plaintiffs' achieving the discharge of Jonathan from the defendant, and the

analysis and treatment of him thereafter, Jonathan has greatly improved to the recovery point that

he had before the treatment and mistreatment by defendant. He now lives at home with the

plaintiffs, travels with them in the area, visits shops and businesses, engages in use of various

materials including computers, visits the library and restaurants, bakes cookies, and anticipates

the possibility of limited commitments to working.

V. COUNT I-ACTION FOR MEDICAL INJURY

14. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant failed to meet the standards of acceptable professional practice in the

medical care of Jonathan in violation of its professional and specialty responsibility, and failed to

act in accordance with applicable standards, in the particulars set forth above and hereafter,

without limitation of other particulars that may be apparent upon review of the records of

treatment of Jonathan or other information. In particular:

A. Defendant violated its standard of care in losing control of Jonathan and allowing

him to be lost, inadequately clothed, into the wilderness in cold winter conditions

that caused him to incur near-death injuries.

B. Defendant misevaluated Jonathan as subject to psychiatric injury and advocated

warehousing him in a permanent commitment of him to facilities that would do

little to improve his condition.

C. Defendant kept Jonathan under its care as long as it was receiving insurance

coverage for his care and attempted to illegally dump and discharge him upon

losing insurance coverage for his continued care.

D. Defendant improperly applied medications limiting Jonathan's recovery and

activity.

E. Defendant improperly attempted to illegally dump Jonathan at unsuitable facilities

or without facilities to care for him.

F. Defendant advocated turning Jonathan into permanent institutional care that

would not treat or improve his condition.

Case 1:06-cv-00475-PB Document 1 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 5
16. Defendant has medically injured Jonathan in negligence toward Jonathan in,

without limitation, the particulars set forth above.

17. Jonathan has been injured as a result of defendant's negligence in his near death

and physical injury in the wilderness, and in other particulars including, without limitation, those

set forth above.

18. Jonathan has been injured as a result of the defendant's negligence. The amount

in controversy is in excess of $1,000,000. plus interest and costs.

VI. COUNT 11-BREACH OF CONTRACT

19. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 18 above.

20. Defendant has breached its contractual responsibilities for care of Jonathan

including, without limitation, those particulars set forth hereinabove.

21. Jonathan has been injured as a result of the defendant's breach of contract. The

amount in controversy is in excess of $1,000,000. plus interest and costs.

VII. COUNT 111-NEGLIGENCE

22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21 above.

23. Defendant has been negligent in its evaluation, care, and treatment of Jonathan.

24. Jonathan has been injured as a result of the defendant's negligence. The amount

in controversy is in excess of $1,000,000. plus interest and costs.

VIII. TRIAL BY JURY

25. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

Wherefore Plaintiffs pray that the Honorable Court:

A. Award them damages for all injuries, costs, and losses resulting from the

defendant's conduct;

B. Award them interest, costs and attorney's fees;

C. Such other and further relief as may be just.

Case 1:06-cv-00475-PB Document 1 Filed 12/19/06 Page 4 of 5
Respectfully submitted,

Date: December 19, 2006

David S. Young and Joan E. Young as

Guardians of the Person and Estate of

Jonathan Matthew Young

By their attorneys:

D'Amante Couser Steiner Pellerin, PA

/s/ Richard B. Couser

Richard B. Couser

NH Bar No.519

Nine Triangle Park Drive

P.O. Box 2650

Concord, NH 03302-2650

(603)-224-6777

(603)-224-6696 - Fax

Case 1:06-cv-00475-PB Document 1 Filed 12/19/06 Page 5 of 5