Radcliffe v. Sunrise Family Resource Center

Radcliffe v. Sunrise Family Resource Center, 310-10-17 Bncv (Barra, J., June 5, 2019)
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Bennington Unit Docket No. 310-10-17 Bncv
Darrell Radcliffe,
Plaintiff
v. DECISION ON MOTION
Sunrise Family Resource Center,
Defendant
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff
filed tort claims arising from sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by Defendant’s former employee
when Plaintiff was enrolled in its facility in 1988. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 12 V.S.A. § 522, governing actions based on
childhood sexual abuse, and by the equitable doctrine of laches. For the reasons that follow, the
motion is DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Radcliffe was born on June 30, 1984. In 1988, he was enrolled in daycare at Sunrise
Family Resource Center. He claims that a former employee of Sunrise sexually abused him
while he attended that facility. Mr. Radcliffe filed his Complaint on October 30, 2017, bringing
claims of battery, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligence, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, for which he seeks compensatory and exemplary damages.
Mr. Radcliffe has a long history of mental health problems and has received treatment
with multiple healthcare providers. There is evidence before the court that at various points in
his life he was diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Mr. Radcliffe
maintains that he has always known that he was sexually abused at Sunrise. He has discussed
the sexual abuse with several mental healthcare providers. Mr. Radcliffe alleges that although he
knew he was sexually abused at Sunrise, and although he discussed the abuse with mental health
providers, he did not know that his psychological conditions were caused by the sexual abuse
until 2016. That year, he saw a physician’s assistant, Shawn May, of Battenkill Valley Family
Health, who explained to him the connection between the abuse and his conditions. Prior to
2016, Mr. Radcliffe claims that he associated his conditions with a multitude of other
characteristics of his life, such as anger towards his father, poverty, relationship difficulties, bad
luck, and problems in school.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” V.R.C.P.
56(a). The record evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, who receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. Stone v. Town of
Irasburg, 2014 VT 43, ¶ 25, 196 Vt. 356; Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15, 176
Vt. 356.
Sunrise first argues that Mr. Radcliffe’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations in
12 V.S.A. § 522, which provides:
A civil action brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered
as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced within six years of the
act alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or six years of the time the
victim discovered that the injury or condition was caused by that act, whichever
period expires later. The victim need not establish which act in a series of
continuing sexual abuse or exploitation incidents caused the injury.
12 V.S.A. § 522(a). The statute is applicable to this matter by virtue of the retroactivity
provision in the enacting legislative act, which provides that the statute applies to all causes of
action commenced after July 1, 1990, “so long as either the act of sexual abuse or the discovery
that the injury or condition was caused by the act of sexual abuse occurred on or after July 1,
1984.” See 1989, No. 292 (Adj. Sess.), § 4(b); Earle v. State, 170 Vt. 183, 188 (1999). The
sexual abuse in this case is alleged to have occurred in 1988.
Additionally, § 522 is tolled until a plaintiff turns eighteen years of age if the action
accrued prior to his eighteenth birthday. 12 V.S.A. § 551; Earle, 170 Vt. at 192. Here, Mr.
Radcliffe was born on June 30, 1984 and turned 18 on June 30, 2002. If the action accrued
before he turned 18, the six-year limitations period expired on June 30, 2008. However, it is
possible that the action accrued under the discovery prong of § 522 after his eighteenth birthday,
and within six years of the filing of the Complaint on October 30, 2017. Thus, at issue is
whether there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the action accrued within six years of the
filing of the Complaint.
The word “act” in § 522 does not “refer solely to the alleged act of sexual abuse, but
could refer also to the alleged act of negligence by a third party.” Earle, 170 Vt. at 188. The
date of accrual under the statute of limitations turns on “the point at which a plaintiff should have
discovered the basic elements of a cause of action: an injury caused by the negligence or breach
of duty of a particular defendant.” Id. at 193. The six-year limitations period begins to run
“when a plaintiff ‘had information, or should have obtained information, sufficient to put a
reasonable person on notice that a particular defendant may have been liable for the plaintiff’s
injuries.’” Id. (quoting Rodrigue v. VALCO Enterprises, Inc., 169 Vt. 539, 541 (1999)). The
statute of limitations does not provide:
Page 2 of 6
[L]imitless causes of action, accruing every time a new condition is discovered.
Normally, a plaintiff cannot claim that an additional limitations period is
inaugurated when additional injuries arising from the same incident are
discovered later. A cause of action is generally deemed to accrue at the earliest
point at which a plaintiff discovers an injury and its possible cause.
Earle v. State, 170 Vt. 183, 190 (1999).
“[T]he question of when an injury reasonably should have been discovered ‘is one of fact
to be determined by the jury.’” Clarke v. Abate, 2013 VT 52, ¶ 10, 194 Vt. 294 (quoting
Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165, 172 (1989)). The court may determine the accrual-date issue
only “when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the
nonmoving party on that issue.” Id. (quoting Turner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington,
Vermont, 2009 VT 101, ¶ 48, 186 Vt. 396).
Here, Sunrise points to specific references in Mr. Radcliffe’s medical records obtained
during discovery and argues that they demonstrate that he was aware of the sexual abuse, the
injuries and conditions resulting therefrom, and Sunrise’s breach of a duty for more than two
decades before filing the Complaint. These references, however, are small parts of broader
narratives and descriptions of Mr. Radcliffe’s many psychological problems and only prove that
he discussed his alleged sexual abuse with mental health professionals at various points of his
life. They do not prove as a matter of law that Mr. Radcliffe had information, or should have
obtained information, sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that the sexual abuse caused
his psychological conditions or that Sunrise—as opposed to the alleged perpetrator—breached a
duty of care, thereby accruing his cause of action six years before the filing of the Complaint. A
jury may well make that finding, but Sunrise has failed to prove that there is no genuine dispute
as to this material fact.
Sunrise’s first reference to the medical records is from a 1995 psychological report
prepared be a psychologist of the Bennington School District in connection with Mr. Radcliffe’s
need for special education. As part of this 12-page comprehensive psychological report on Mr.
Radcliffe, then 10 years old, the psychologist states that “Darrell was referred to a local therapist,
Lou Propp, for individual therapy. The focus of Dr. Propp’s therapy dealt with a sexual
molestation when Darrel was quite young.” The psychologist goes on to note that “[w]hen
discussing his therapy with Dr. Propp, Darrell reported that it had to do with his abuse in
younger years. He expressed that he saw Dr. Propp for over a year, but he ‘fired him’ for telling
his secrets to his mother.” The report further provides that “Darrell still suffers from some
depressive symptomatology, is quite angry regarding losses and past abuse in his life . . . .” The
report, however, also contains references to Mr. Radcliffe’s anger towards his father, low self-
esteem, and social isolation. It concludes that Mr. Radcliffe “suffers from a poor self-image,
elevated anxiety with a low frustration tolerance, social isolation, and levels of internal anger . . .
. These behaviors are understandable when they are framed in [Mr. Radcliffe’s] past, ongoing
social isolation, and his feelings of loss regarding his natural father.”
Sunrise’s second reference to the medical records comes from a 1997 “Daily Report,” in
which the author documents that upon asking Mr. Radcliffe “where he wanted to go with the
conversation [they] had over the issue of abuse he encountered in daycare,” he replied that “it
Page 3 of 6
was done and over with he did not want [the] case reopened.” The report also describes anger
and feelings of helplessness.
Sunrise also submits that a 1998 Psychological Services Report demonstrates ongoing
awareness, acknowledgement, and discussion of his conditions and the alleged abuse. However,
the psychologist explains that Mr. Radcliffe’s myriad psychological problems are caused by
multitudinous factors, the interaction of which could not be explained at the time. The report
identifies low self-esteem and severe difficulty in social situations. It describes Mr. Radcliffe as
being overwhelmed with a host of issues and concludes that “[h]e does not, therefore, do well
with his cause and effect thinking in the area of behavior and emotions.” As to the causes of his
problems, this trained psychologist explained that “there are a variety of factors at work,”
including innate cognitive strengths and weaknesses, developmental issues, and issues
surrounding “internal emotions and turmoil.” The psychologist concludes that “the exact
explanation of how the various factors interact with one another cannot be fully explained.”
Reference is also made to a 2011 Crisis Evaluation Form, which records that Mr.
Radcliffe presented with anxiety, sleep paralysis, and night terrors precipitated by the birth of his
son. The document lists Mr. Radcliffe’s family history, including his mother’s PTSD and his
brother’s personality and bi-polar disorders. It goes on to list “triggers,” namely, “toxic family,
grandma dying of lung cancer, and childhood sexual abuse in a daycare run by United
Counseling Services—can’t get services in that area.” Sunrise observes that Mr. Radcliffe
pointed to a connection with UCS, which is affiliated with Sunrise and thereby identified a
connection between abuse, injuries, and the Defendant.
A July 2011 Discharge Summary from Brattleboro Retreat, a mental health facility,
provides that “[h]e endorses a history of physical, emotional and sexual abuse during childhood.”
A December 2011 Emergency Department Report from Southwestern Vermont Medical
Center outlines Mr. Radcliffe’s complaints, medical history, exams, medication, etc. It states:
“[Mr. Radcliffe] provides me with a long and complex past history including child abuse and
sexual assault in day care.” The report goes on to explain that Mr. Radcliffe felt he could not be
treated locally by United Counseling Services “because they have a connection with the daycare
in which he was sexually assaulted as a child.” However, the report also describes Mr.
Radcliffe’s discussion regarding his father and further states that Mr. Radcliffe complained of
being “very shaky” and that he did not think this was a psychiatric problem, but rather an
undiagnosed medical problem.
Finally, December 2011 progress notes describe Mr. Radcliffe as a “patient with long-
standing history of anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder standing from child abuse when he
was in daycare.”
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Radcliffe, and giving him the
benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences, these references to medical records do not prove
as a matter of law that Mr. Radcliffe had information, or should have obtained information,
Page 4 of 6
sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that the sexual abuse caused his psychological
conditions or that Sunrise breached a duty of care. They only prove that Mr. Radcliffe knew he
was sexually abused at the Sunrise facility and that he discussed the abuse with mental health
professionals at various points of his life. There is no evidence that the health professionals
explained a causal connection between abuse and condition to Mr. Radcliffe. Indeed, there is
evidence that at least one trained psychologist could not explain the interaction between Mr.
Radcliffe’s many psychological problems and their apparently multiple causes. Thus, there is no
evidence at present from which to find that a reasonable person should have made the required
link before Mr. Radcliffe allegedly did.
Even the most direct reference to a link between abuse, condition, and defendant is
insufficient. The 2011 progress notes stating that Mr. Radcliffe is a “patient with long-standing
history of anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder standing from child abuse when he was in
daycare” only proves that the treating physician could have made the link. The document does
not prove that the doctor related this information to Mr. Radcliffe, nor is there any other evidence
to that effect. Moreover, because the Complaint was filed on October 30, 2017 and the progress
notes are dated December 7, 2011, any possible link would fall within the six-year limitations
period.
Additionally, the referenced medical records serve as a legally sufficient evidentiary basis
for a reasonable jury to find for Mr. Radcliffe. In his affidavit, Mr. Radcliffe submits that he did
not make the necessary connection until he saw a physician’s assistant in 2016. Mr. Radcliffe
maintains that before this, he associated his conditions with numerous other characteristics of his
life, such as anger towards his father, poverty, relationship difficulties, bad luck, and difficulties
in school. Multiple medical records in evidence substantiate this claim. The records speak of
Mr. Radcliffe’s anger towards his father, low self-esteem, problems in school and with family,
social isolation, and a poor self-image. They also speak of “a variety of factors at work,”
including innate cognitive strengths and weaknesses, developmental issues, and issues
surrounding “internal emotions and turmoil.” Given the evidence of multiple conditions and
multiple possible causes, and the described complexity of their interactions, a reasonable jury
could find for Mr. Radcliffe.
Accordingly, there is a genuine dispute of material fact on the statute-of-limitations issue
that should rightly be decided by a jury.
Sunrise’s second argument for summary judgment is that Mr. Radcliffe’s claims are
barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. “Laches is the failure to assert a right for an
unreasonable and unexplained period of time when the delay has been prejudicial to the adverse
party, rendering it inequitable to enforce the right.” Stamato v. Quazzo, 139 Vt. 155, 157 (1980).
It is not delay alone that gives rise to laches, “but from delay that works disadvantage to
another.” In re Estate of Lovell, 2011 VT 61, ¶ 10, 190 Vt. 99 (quoting Comings & Livingston v.
Powell, 97 Vt. 286, 294 (1923).
Page 5 of 6
The Supreme Court has recognized that victims of childhood sexual abuse “may be
unable to understand or make the connection between childhood sexual abuse and emotional
harm until many years after the abuse” and that “victims who are aware of some childhood
sexual abuse discover serious injuries many years later.” See Earle v. State, 170 Vt. 183, 189–90
(1999). In view of the evidence in this case of multiple psychological conditions and various
possible causes, and the complexity of their interactions, the court cannot find as a matter of law
that Mr. Radcliffe failed to assert his right to bring these claims for an unreasonable and
unexplained period of time. Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate on grounds of laches.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
So ordered.
_________________________________________
David Barra
Superior Court Judge
Page 6 of 6