1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 

ROY WAKE

Plaintiff,

v.

SSC GREELEY CENTENNIAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and SAVASENIORCARE 

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT, JURY DEMAND

AND CERTIFICATE OF REVIEW

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Roy Wake, and for his Complaint, Jury 

Demand and Certificate of Review against Defendants SSC GREELEY 

CENTENNIAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; and SAVASENIORCARE ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, states and avers 

as follows:

I. PARTIES AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Roy Wake is the heir at law of Helen Margaret Wake and 

a Colorado resident, who currently lives at at 4217 E. Vine Drive, Fort 

Collins, Colorado 80524. 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
2

2. Defendant SSC Greeley Centennial Operating Company, LLC is 

the license holder of Centennial Health Care Center (“Centennial”), a skilled 

nursing facility located in Weld County, Colorado. Defendant SSC Greeley 

Centennial Operating Company, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company. Defendant SSC Greeley Centennial Operating Company’s 

prinicipal office is at 1500 Ravinia Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant SSC 

Greeley Centennial Operating Company, LLC is owned by Murray Forman, 

a resident of New Jersey, and Leonard Grunstein, a resident of New York.

3. Defendant SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC is a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company. Defendant SavaSeniorCare 

Administrative Services, LLC at all times relevant provided management, 

supervisory and oversight services for Centennial. These services included 

the provision of human resources; creation and approval of Centennial’s 

staffing and operations budget; provision of Centennial’s governing body; 

direct supervision of Centennial’s administrator; creation and enforcement 

of Centennial’s nursing policies and procedures; supervision of Centennial’s 

compliance with all State and Federal regulatory requirements; and the 

responses to regulatory deficiencies cited by State and Federal authorities. 

Defendant SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC provided all 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15
3

management and operational support for Centennial at times relevant to this 

Complaint.

4. Upon information and belief, both of the Defendants are entities 

owned and controlled by Murray Forman and Leonard Grunstein, individual 

real estate investors from New York.

5. The District of Colorado has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is a diversity of citizenship between the 

Plaintiff and Defendants. There is a complete diversity of citizenship 

between the Plaintiff and all of the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

6. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado because the acts and 

omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred within 

Colorado.

7. Defendant SSC Greeley Centennial Operating Company, LLC 

employed persons within the State of Colorado at times relevant to this 

Complaint.

8. Defendant SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC 

employed persons within the State of Colorado at times relevant to this 

Complaint.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
4

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were 

fully set forth verbatim herein.

10. Helen Margaret Wake, who was 89 years old, was a resident of 

Centennial during times relevant. Mrs. Wake was totally dependent on her 

caregivers for movement, transfers and care. Mrs. Wake weighed 246 

pounds and was at high risk for falling. Defendants accepted Mrs. Wake as 

a resident and were aware of her medical conditions and care needs at all 

times relevant. 

11. Plaintiff visited his mother two to three times a week during her stay 

at Centennial.

12. On or about October 11, 2009, Centennial staff attempted to transfer 

Mrs. Wake using only one staff member and using the wrong mechanical 

lift. The lift itself was also defective. At all times relevant, Mrs. Wake was 

required to be transferred with two staff members using a larger capacity lift.

13. Defendants and their staff member knew that it was negligent to 

attempt to transfer Mrs. Wake using the wrong, defective lift while assisted 

by only staff member. This conduct also directly violated Defendants’ own 

policies and procedures, which the staff member had just been trained in 

four days earlier. 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
5

14. As a result of using the wrong, defective lift and only one aide, Mrs. 

Wake foreseeably fell during this attempted transfer. 

15. In an internal investigation, Defendants concluded that Mrs. Wake’s 

fall was caused by the staff member’s failure to follow Centennial’s policies 

and procedures by:

failing to request assistance from another staff member, failing to use the 

correct mechanical lift and failing to ensure the sling straps were placed 

correctly and securely on the sling bar.

16. The Centennial staff member who negligently transferred Mrs. Wake 

was terminated. A maintenance employee was also terminated for failing to 

repair a known defect on the lift used during the transfer.

17. Defendants determined that the fact that the staff member had been 

trained on using the lift just four days earlier was an aggravating factor.

18. As a direct and proximate result of this fall, Mrs. Wake broke her left 

femur, shattered her right hip, sustained multiple fractured ribs and also 

sustained an approximate five-inch gash on the top of her head that required 

seven staples. 

19. The day following this fall, on October 12, 2009, Mrs. Wake died 

from her catastrophic resulting injuries and trauma. This preventable death 

was from non-natural and negligent causes, and entirely proximately caused 

by the gross negligence of Mrs. Wake’s Centennial caregivers.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
6

20. Despite regulatory requirements, Defendants did not notify the 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) that 

Mrs. Wake was seriously injured and also died as a result of this serious 

occurrence at their facility. 

21. Centennial has a poor regulatory history with the CDPHE. For 

example, and not by way of limitation, during the period 7/15/2006 –

2/14/2008, Centennial was cited with 32 deficiencies. Eleven of these 

deficiencies were pattern deficiencies. Three of these deficiencies were 

Level G (actual harm) deficiencies. These Level G deficiencies include 

failure to provide medically related social services; failure to ensure that 

residents who enter the facility without pressure sores do not develop them 

in the facility; and failure to provide adequate supervision and assistance 

devices to prevent accidents. CDPHE found that seven residents were 

directly harmed by these deficient practices. On April 16, 2009, this facility 

was cited by CDPHE with numerous additional care deficiencies, including 

those regarding accidents and supervision involving several residents.

22. In an effort to evade liability as to Roy Wake, Mrs. Wake’s known 

son and heir at law, Defendants acted to try to settle Mr. Wake’s wrongful 

death claims through his other siblings. 

23. In particular, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s grief, upset and 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
7

anguish over his mother’s wrongful death. Despite this knowledge, 

Defendants sought and obtained a settlement from Plaintiff’s siblings, who 

were not represented by counsel, for his mother’s death, without his 

participation and knowing that he did not agree with the offer made by 

Defendants or the settlement they reached with his siblings. 

24. Defendants consciously and intentionally attempted to preclude 

Plaintiff from bringing a wrongful death claim by engaging in this wrongful 

conduct. 

25. Defendants’ payment of monies to Plaintiff’s siblings does not act as 

consideration for the release of Plaintiff’s claims brought here. Plaintiff 

received no portion of the minimal monies Defendants paid to his siblings, 

did not sign a release of his claims and did not consent to settlement of any 

wrongful death claims. 

26. Defendants were specifically made aware of Plaintiff’s refusal to 

settle his claims and were specifically made aware of Plaintiff’s objection to 

any such settlement. 

27. In fact, Plaintiff notified Defendants in writing that he objected to 

any settlement until he had the opportunity to consult attorneys. He 

specifically stated: 

“I will be contacting attorneys considering this situation and will not be 

signing any papers until I see justice done and administered.” 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
8

See Exhibit 1. 

28. Defendants consciously avoided involving Plaintiff in settlement 

discussions because they knew and understood that he would have an 

attorney review any proposed settlement, while Plaintiff’s siblings were 

known to be unrepresented. 

29. Defendants thus attempted to subvert Plaintiff’s legal rights as an 

heir at law to bring and be involved in a wrongful death claim by dealing 

exclusively with his unrepresented siblings. 

30. Defendants never made any contact with Roy Wake with regard to

his letter. 

31. In addition, on information and belief, no person, including any 

sibling of Plaintiff, was authorized to act in any way as personal 

representative or other agency with power and authority to affect, release, 

settle, compromise, nullify, eliminate or void Plaintiff’s individual personal 

statutory rights to pursue a wrongful death or other claims against 

Defendants.

32. Plaintiff’s siblings did not file a lawsuit or claim for wrongful death 

in any Court of competent jurisdiction.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
9

III. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

Wrongful Death As A Result of Nursing Home Negligence 

33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the preceding paragraphs, as if each 

were fully set forth herein.

34. Defendants owed Mrs. Wake, and thus by extension Plaintiff, a duty 

of due care, which included:

A. A duty to develop and implement timely and consistent care 

plans;

B. A duty to assess and reassess accident prevention plans;

C. A duty to follow their policies and procedures;

D. A duty to maintain and provide properly functioning 

equipment;

E. A duty to provide sufficient supervision to prevent accidents;

F. A duty to provide appropriate care needs, including nutrition 

and hydration;

G. A duty to provide sufficient staff and staff training; and

H. A duty to follow all State and Federal regulations governing the 

operation of skilled nursing facilities.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
10

35. Defendants breached these duties of due care by engaging in the 

acts and omissions set forth herein and by: 

A. Failing to develop and implement timely and consistent care 

plans; 

B. Failing to properly assess and reassess accident prevention 

plans; 

C. Failing to follow internal policies for use of lifts, including 

proper staffing for such uses; 

D. Failing to provide proper equipment and supervision to prevent 

accidents;

E. Failing to properly assess and timely secure appropriate basic 

care needs, including nutrition and hydration; 

F. Failing to ensure that the facility could meet the overall needs 

of Mrs. Wake; 

G. Failing to assure her highest practicable level of functioning;

H. Failing to provide sufficient staff and sufficiently trained staff 

to meet Mrs. Wake’s known safety needs;

I. Failing to adequately document Mrs. Wake’s condition and 

care; and 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
11

J. Failing to provide care and services in accordance with State 

and Federal regulations.

36. The negligent acts and omissions by Defendants were a 

substantial and significant contributing proximate cause in the avoidable 

and untimely death of Mrs. Wake.

37. Had Defendants, through their agents and employees, not 

committed the many negligent acts and omissions outlined herein, Mrs. 

Wake would not have died how or when she did.

38. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages, losses and injuries in an 

amount to be determined by the jury at trial. These damages include, inter 

alia, pain and suffering, upset, grief, loss of society and companionship, 

anger, depression, and all other purely non-economic damages as allowed 

under the Colorado Wrongful Death Act.

39. Given the circumstances of fraud, malice and willful and 

wanton conduct surrounding this wrongful death claim, Plaintiff hereby

gives notice that he anticipates seeking leave to amend the Complaint to 

seek punitive damages, as appropriate under Colorado law. 

 IV. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

Declaratory Judgment

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
12

40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the preceding paragraphs, as if each 

were fully set forth herein.

41. Pursuant to the F.R.C.P. Rule 57 and the Federal Declaratory 

Judgment Act, the Court is asked to determine the rights and status of the 

parties with respect to the legal issues between them identified in this claim 

for relief.

42. The Court is asked to declare, if appropriate at the time of the jury 

verdict, that the claims brought herein are not capped by the Health Care 

Availability Act (“HCAA”) because Defendants did not have HCAA 

conforming insurance at times relevant. HCAA conforming insurance is the 

quid pro quo for damages caps under the HCAA. 

43. The Court is asked to further declare under F.R.C.P. 57 that any 

arbitration agreement that was obtained by Defendants in violation of 

Colorado law governing such agreements, the HCAA, unconscionability 

principles and substantive due process is unenforceable, null and void.

44. The Court is further asked to find and declare under F.R.C.P. 57 that 

the purported settlement agreeement as between Defendants and Plaintiff’s 

siblings is null and void as to Plaintiff and has no bearing on his rights to 

proceed herein against Defendants for his mother’s wrongful death because:

a. He was not a party to it;

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
13

b. He specifically notified Defendants in writing that he was a 

claimant, not willing to settle at that time, and that he did not 

consent to any settlement of his claims through anyone else;

c. He has not knowingly or voluntarily released, settled, 

waived, extinguished or compromised his rights as a 

surviving child under the Wrongful Death Act;

d. No consideration was paid to him by Defendants;

f. No action for wrongful death has been filed prior to this suit; 

and

h. Defendants’ actions were accompanied by unclean hands, 

circumstances of fraud, predatory conduct, undue pressure, 

inequitable conduct and/or procedural and substantive 

unconscionability with respect to this plaintiff precluding any 

attempt to enforce any settlement agreement with his siblings 

and others as to him.

V. CERTIFICATE OF REVIEW

Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that an expert in the field of long 

term care and in the field of internal medicine has reviewed this matter and that 

said expert has reviewed all facts, records and materials deemed relevant by 

said expert. Based upon this review, the expert has determined that Plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
14

claims are not frivolous, groundless or lacking in substantial merit within the 

meaning of C.R.S. Section 13-17-102(4).

Said expert’s review satisfies the requirements of C.R.S. Section 13-20-

602.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his

favor and against the Defendants, in an amount to be determined by a jury 

following a trial, and award the following damages:

A. Non-economic damages under the Wrongful Death Statute;

B. Pre and post judgment interest and pre-filing interest;

C. Declaratory relief pursuant to F.R.C.P. 57 and the Federal 

Declaratory Judgment Act as requested herein regarding the 

purported settlement, regarding caps and regarding any 

purported arbitration agreement;

D. Case costs;

E. Any other relief at law or equity that the Court deems 

necessary, proper or just under the circumstances.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
15

Respectfully submitted this October 7, 2011,

[Filed Electronically, Original Signatures on file in Counsel’s 

Office]

/s/ Jerome M. Reinan 

 Law Offices of J. M. Reinan, P.C.

Jerome M. Reinan

Jordana Griff Gingrass

1437 High Street

Denver, CO 80218

/s/ John R. Holland 

Law Offices of John R. Holland, P.C.

John R. Holland

Anna Holland-Edwards

Erica T. Grossman

1437 High Street

Denver, CO 80218

Plaintiff Address: 

4217 E. Vine Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524.

Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15