STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN …graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100428ADOPT/adopt...Apr 28, 2010 · Case 1:08-cv-00104-PLM Document 1 Filed 01/31/2008 ... agent,

Case 1:08-cv-00104-PLM Document 1 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

WILLIAM G. and JULIE A. HARSHAW,Husband and Wife, Individually and asGuardian ofROMAN A. HARSHAW, A Minor,

Residents and Citizens of theCommonwealth ofVirginia,

FILED - GRJanuary 31,20082:39 PM

RONALD C. WESTON, SR., CLERKu.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANBY: _rmw__f _

1:08-cv-104

Hon.

Plaintiffs,

v.

BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES,A Michigan Corporation, andBETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES OFHAMPTON ROADS, A MichiganCorporation, and BETHANY CHRISTIANSERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMichigan Corporation,

Defendants

Kevin Abraham Rynbrandt (P46699)RYNBRANDT & ASSOCIATESAttorneys for Plaintiffs William G. and JulieA. Harshaw1000 Front StreetGrand Rapids, MI 49504(616) 477-9958

Case No. Robert Holmes BellChief U.S. District Judge

PLAINTIFFS' VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT ANDJURY DEMAND

Samuel C. Totaro, Jr.Elissa B. HeinrichsMELLON WEBSTER & SHELLY, P.C.Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs William G. and JulieA. Harshaw87 N. Broad StreetDoylestown PA 18901(215) 348-7700

Plaintiffs, William G. Harshaw, and Julie A. Harshaw, (hereinafter "the Harshaws") as

adult individuals, as husband and wife, and as parents and guardians ofRoman A. Harshaw, by

and through their attorneys, Rynbrandt & Associates and Mellon Webster & Shelly, P.C., allege

as follows:


1. Plaintiffs, the Harshaws, at all times relevant hereto, resided at either 2256 Walke

Street, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 or 4316 John Silver Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia

23455. The Harshaws were married on October 19, 1991. The Harshaws are residents and

citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Harshaws are the parents and guardians of their

son, Roman Alexander Harshaw, a minor, as well as their son Daniel, age 10, and daughter

Grace, age 3.

2. Plaintiff, Roman Alexander Harshaw (hereinafter "Roman"), was adopted by the

Harshaws on January 27,2004. Roman was born on April 2, 2002, in Mariinsk, Kemerovo

region, Russia, and prior to his adoption was known by the name Roman Aleksandrovich

Afanasyev. Since his adoption, Roman has resided with the Harshaws at the locations noted in

Paragraph 1 above.

3. Defendant, Bethany Christian Services, is an adoption agency licensed by the

State ofMichigan and elsewhere. Bethany Christian Services is incorporated under the laws of

the State of Michigan and provides adoption services for children and families, with an office for

the conducting of its business at 901 Eastern Avenue, NE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501.

4. Defendant, Bethany Christian Services of Hampton Roads, Inc., is, on

information and belief, an adoption agency licensed by the State of Michigan and elsewhere.

Bethany Christian Services of Hampton Roads, Inc., is incorporated under the laws ofthe State

of Michigan.

5. Defendant, Bethany Christian Services International, Inc., is, on information and

belief, an adoption agency licensed by the State ofMichigan and elsewhere. Bethany Christian

Services International, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State ofMichigan.

2


6. On infonnation and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Bethany Christian

Services; Bethany Christian Services of Hampton Roads, Inc.; and Bethany Christian Services,

International, Inc., acted together and/or as agents of each other with respect to all actions

complained ofherein, and Bethany Christian Services; Bethany Christian Services ofHampton

Roads, Inc.; and Bethany Christian Services, International, Inc., all undertook and breached

duties to the Harshaws as set forth below. Hereinafter, Bethany Christian Services; Bethany

Christian Services ofHampton Roads, Inc.; and Bethany Christian Services, International, Inc.,

shall be referred to collectively as "Bethany."

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional limits of this Court.

8. Bethany, at all times relevant hereto, was acting by and through its employees,

agents, representatives and/or directors.

9. Bethany advertises and promotes itselfto the public as having experience and an

expertise in the field of international adoptions.

10. Prior to the adoption ofRoman, the Harshaws had learned of the services of

Bethany through research on the internet and Bethany's advertisements.

11. On June 12,2003, the Harshaws attended an infonnational meeting at Bethany's

regional office in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

12. On June 13,2003, the Harshaws completed a Preliminary Application for

adoption of a child from one of Bethany's International programs in China, Guatemala, and

Russia. A true and correct copy of this Preliminary Application is attached hereto as Exhibit

3


"A" and is hereby fully incorporated herein. On or about, June 13,2003, the Harshaws

forwarded the Preliminary Application to Bethany.

13. In the Preliminary Application, the Harshaws stated, among other things, that they

would accept a child with very minor medical problems and would not consider a child with

moderate to severe medical problems.

14. On or about June 18,2003, the Harshaws completed an Adoption Application for

an International Adoption (hereinafter the "Adoption Application") and forwarded it to Bethany.

The Adoption Application had been provided to the Harshaws by Bethany. A true and correct

copy of the true and correct copy of the Adoption Application is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"

and is hereby fully incorporated herein.

15. In this Adoption Application, the Harshaws stated, among other things, that they

were "interested in parenting a child that has a positive prognosis for both mental and physical

development."

16. The Harshaws relied upon Bethany and its claimed expertise and assurances, and

entrusted their desire and effort to pursue the adoption of a child to Bethany, based on

representations made by Bethany to the Harshaws throughout the adoption process.

17. Bethany required the Harshaws to undertake a pre-adoption family assessment in

preparation for adoption.

18. Pursuant to that requirement, the Harshaws signed a document for the pre-

adoption family assessment entitled "International Adoption Services Agreement" on or about

July 14,2003. A true and correct copy of the true and correct copy of the International Adoption

Services Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is hereby fully incorporated herein.

The pre-adoption family assessment was to be conducted by Bethany's regional office.

4


19. The Harshaws understood that, if the pre-adoption family assessment was

favorable, Bethany agreed to act as intermediary on behalf of and/or as a fiduciary for the

Harshaws in the adoption of a child from a foreign country.

20. Bethany completed the pre-adoption family assessment on the Harshaws and

issued a written pre-adoption assessment report (hereinafter "the Assessment") on or about

August 22,2003. A true and correct copy of the true and correct copy ofthe Assessment is

attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is hereby fully incorporated herein.

21. In the Assessment, Bethany stated, among other things, that the Harshaws "feel

equipped to parent a child who may have a minor, correctable problem with a good prognosis for

normal development."

22. Based on the assessment, Bethany approved the Harshaws to adopt a child from

Russia, age 12-36 months, with "minor, correctable condition with a prognosis for a normal

development."

23. The Harshaws paid Bethany the sum of$16,100.00 for its services and in return

therefore, Bethany agreed to act on their behalf in seeking the possible adoption of a child from

Russia.

24. In so doing, Bethany was responsible for, among other things, providing all

medical and other information necessary for the Harshaws to make an informed decision

regarding such an adoption.

25. Bethany, through its representative, Jeannie Walton, made an initial referral to the

Harshaws, ofa Russian child available for adoption. However, the ehild referred had been

severely burned by his mother and suffered from physical problems. Based on these medical

5


conditions, the Harshaws declined the referral and emphasized to Bethany that they could only

accept a child with minor, correctable conditions with a prognosis for normal development.

26. The next referral the Harshaws received from Bethany was for Roman, who was

sixteen months old at the time. Bethany provided the following information about Roman: His

name, age, gender, and a photograph.

27. Shortly thereafter, Bethany forwarded to the Harshaws a two page English

translation ofwhat Bethany represented was a summary of the medical records from Roman's

orphanage (hereinafter "Translated Summary"). A true and correct copy of that Translated

Summary is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and is hereby fully incorporated herein.

28. On information and belief, the Translated Summary was prepared by an

employee, agent, and/or representative ofBethany in Russia after which it was forwarded to

Bethany in the United States, and then, from Bethany to the Harshaws.

29. Along with the Translated Summary, Bethany sent the Harshaws a videotape

showing what appeared to be Roman interacting with his caregivers in Russia. The videotape

depicts the caregivers talking to Roman in Russian. Bethany provided no English translation of

the videotape.

30. In reliance on the Translated Summary and the videotape of Roman, the

Harshaws notified Bethany that they were willing to proceed with the adoption ofRoman,

provided that Bethany gave them any additional medical information concerning Roman.

Bethany agreed.

31. Bethany, through Jeannie Walton, called the Harshaws into the Bethany offices to

discuss the adoption. During the discussion, Mr. Harshaw asked Ms. Walton if the children from

Russia that the Harshaws were considering for adoption were medically healthy. Ms. Walton

6


responded that they were and explained that a medical doctor associated with Bethany, referred

to as "Dr. D," had specific expertise in the evaluation ofRussian children for the purposes of

adoption and that Dr. D regularly examined the children in Russia on trips from his home in New

York. Ms. Walton stated that Dr. D had examined Roman and that Roman was O.K. The

Harshaws learned that the individual referred to as "Dr. D", is Dr. Michael Dubrovsky.

32. In reliance on the foregoing representations ofBethany, the Harshaws traveled to

Russia in December 2003, where they were met by Bethany representatives, Alexandr

Vladimirovich ("Alex") and Yelena Vladimivovna ("Yelena"), who acted as the Harshaws'

guides and interpreters in Russia.

33. Alex and Yelena traveled with the Harshaws to the orphanage in Krasnoyarsk,

Russia, where Roman resided. The Harshaws were permitted to see Roman for approximately an

hour.

34. The Harshaws noted that Roman appeared thin and as ifhe might be ill. They

asked Alex ifRoman was okay.

35. Alex consulted with one of the orphanage staff persons and then told the

Harshaws that Roman had previously had bronchitis.

36. The Harshaws requested additional information about Roman and information

about his mother's medical and social background. In response, Alex informed the Harshaws

that no additional information was available.

37. The Harshaws saw Roman again the next day for approximately an hour. They

then returned to the United States.

7


38. After returning to the United States, the Harshaws met with Jeannie Walton at the

Bethany offices. Among other things, Ms. Walton asked the Harshaws how Roman appeared.

The Harshaws responded that Roman appeared as ifhe might have been sick but otherwise

appeared okay. Ms. Walton assured the Harshaws that what they had seen in Roman were

conditions that were common in institutionalized children, and also that what they had seen in

Roman were minor issues often resulting from malnutrition and crowded living conditions.

39. Bethany made the same assurances about there being only minor medical issues

with Bethany's adoptions from Russia resulting from malnutrition and crowded living conditions

in written materials provided to the Harshaws.

40. Ms. Walton asked the Harshaws if they wanted to move forward with the

adoption and they replied that they did.

41. In January 2004, the Harshaws once again traveled to Russia, this time for the

purpose of adopting Roman by taking custody of him and attending the final adoption hearing.

Upon arrival in Russia, the Harshaws were once again met by Alex and Yelena who

accompanied them to the orphanage in Krasnoyarsk.

42. At the orphanage, the Harshaws asked if there were any more medical records and

history regarding Roman and were assured that no further information existed.

43. At the orphanage the Harshaws took physical custody ofRoman.

44. Bethany did not provide the Harshaws with any additional medical records or

medical information regarding Roman, at any point in time, prior to, or at the final adoption

hearing.

8


45. Reasonably relying on Bethany's representations that Bethany had provided the

Harshaws with all available medical information and that Dr. Dubrovsky had examined and

evaluated Roman, the Harshaws attended the adoption hearing at Krasnoyarsk Regional Court in

Russia, on January 27,2004, and agreed to adopt Roman. The Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

entered an Order ofAdoption in Russia on that date.

46. On returning to the United States with Roman and believing Roman's condition to

be as previously described to them by Bethany and its representatives, the Harshaws looked

forward to life with Roman. After a period of adjustment, however, the Harshaws began to

notice that Roman was not developing as a normal child ofhis age and reported condition.

47. In an attempt to secure an accurate medical diagnosis, the Harshaws spent

approximately the next 18 months investigating and attempting to discern Roman's medical

condition.

48. In undertaking these efforts, the Harshaws spent considerable time and expense

with various medical personnel including physicians, therapists, mental health professionals and

other medical providers.

49. In January 2006, the Harshaws took Roman to Frank Aiello, III, M.D., a

Neurodevelopmental Pediatrician. After examining Roman and the available medical

information, Dr. Aiello suggested the possibility that Roman might suffer from fetal alcohol

syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Dr. Aiello ordered additional testing to assist with further

diagnosis.

50. Eventually, Roman was referred to Ronald S. Federici, Psy.D, Clinical Director of

the Neuropsychological & Family Therapy Associates, P.C., in Alexandria, Virginia.

9


51. On June 14-16,2006, Roman was evaluated by Dr. Federici, and Dr. Federici

diagnosed Roman as suffering from an alcohol/drug related birth defect syndrome, identified

also as a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

52. The fetal alcohol spectrum disorder had caused Roman to suffer severe

neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric abnormalities.

53. With Dr. Federici's diagnosis of Roman in hand, Mr. Harshaw contacted Bethany

and again request additional medical information on Roman. Bethany representatives informed

Mr. Harshaw that the requested medical information would be difficult to retrieve.

54. Mr. Harshaw repeated his requests for additional information over the next

several months.

55. Finally, in October 2006, Bethany gave the Harshaws an Extract of medical

information on Roman (hereinafter "Extract"). The extract consisted of ten pages written in

Russian and six pages of English translation and was the first medical information it had

provided to the Harshaws since their trip to Russia in December 2003. A true and correct copy

of the Extract is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and is hereby fully incorporated herein.

56. Bethany failed to provide the Harshaws with relevant medical information

regarding Roman in a timely manner.

57. At no time prior to the finalization ofthe adoption ofRoman by the Harshaws, did

Bethany disclose to the Harshaws any of the information set forth in Paragraph 55 above, even

though this information was in Bethany's possession, was available to Bethany throughout the

relevant time period, and/or should have been obtained by Bethany for its review, translation and

delivery to the Harshaws.

10


58. The Harshaws reasonably expected Bethany to provide such information and

relied on Bethany in proceeding with the adoption, having been led to believe that, if that type of

information existed, Bethany would have informed the Harshaws accordingly.

59. In addition, during the 24 months immediately following the adoption, the

Harshaws expressed concerns to Bethany about the medical, emotional, and psychological

condition and behavior of Roman. The Harshaws did so during post-placement visits by

Bethany's social worker. The Bethany social worker acknowledged the Harshaws' concerns and

told the Harshaws that the problems Roman was experiencing were ones frequently associated

with being institutionalized and that, with lots of love in a family setting, adopted children can

grow out of the problems. Bethany provided no referrals, recommendations, or other advice

pertaining to the manner of diagnosing and treating Roman's medical condition.

60. Since the adoption, Bethany has admitted to the Harshaws that, contrary to its

representation to the Harshaws, Dr. Dubrovsky never examined or evaluated Roman.

61. Since the adoption, Bethany has admitted to the Harshaws that the information

that Bethany provided to the Harshaws during the adoption was unclear and that the Harshaws

were misinformed by Bethany as a result.

62. In the future, Roman will continue to suffer severe neurocognitive and

neuropsychiatric abnormalities.

63. The Harshaws have incurred, and will continue to incur, considerable expenses in

order to provide the necessary care for Roman throughout the remainder of his expected life.

64. Had the Harshaws been accurately informed of all ofthe information reasonably

available to Bethany at the times during which Bethany interacted with the Harshaws, the

Harshaws would neither have pursued, nor completed, the adoption.

11


65. Had the Harshaws been advised by Bethany of Roman's actual condition and

medical history, they would neither have pursued, nor completed, the adoption.

66. Had Bethany timely provided complete and accurate medical infonnation about

Roman to the Harshaws, the Harshaws would neither have pursued, nor completed, the adoption.

67. Further, had Bethany provided appropriate post placement assistance to the

Harshaws, Roman's condition could have been diagnosed earlier, such that more appropriate

treatment may have been provided to Roman at an earlier stage in his life.

CQUNTI-FRAUDWILLIAM G. AND JULIE A. HARSHAW V. BETHANY

68. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 above as if the

same were fully set forth herein.

69. The statements and representations made to the Harshaws by Bethany relating to

Roman's medical condition and background, including, but not limited to, the statements and

representations regarding Dr. Dubrovsky medically examining Roman and finding him to be in

good health, as well as the statements and representations relating to Roman's medical records

and history, as set forth above, were material to the Harshaw's decisions to both pursue and

complete the adoption of Roman.

70. The foregoing statements and representations made to the Harshaws by Bethany

were false, inaccurate, misleading, and/or materially incomplete.

71. Bethany had a duty, by operation of law and/or by assuming the same, to disclose

to the Harshaws full, complete, and accurate infonnation with respect to Roman and to do so

prior to the adoption, and Bethany knew that the Harshaws were relying on Bethany to supply

the Harshaws with full, complete, and accurate medical infonnation concerning Roman prior to

the final adoption hearing in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court.

12


72. At the time Bethany made the aforementioned statements and representations,

and/or prior to the adoption hearing, Bethany knew or should have known that the statements and

representations were false, inaccurate, misleading, and/or materially incomplete.

73. Because Bethany was fully aware of the Harshaws' expectation to receive full,

complete, and accurate history and background information on Roman, the failure of Bethany to

provide full, complete, and accurate information relating to Roman's medical condition that was

either known by, available to, or accessible by Bethany was fraudulent.

74. The statements and representations made by Bethany to the Harshaws, together

with statements and representations not provided by Bethany to the Harshaws, were made and

withheld, respectively, with the intent to deceive the Harshaws regarding the history and

background ofRoman.

75. The statements and representations made by Bethany to the Harshaws, together

with statements and representations not provided by Bethany to the Harshaws, were made and

withheld, respectively, for purpose of inducing the Harshaws to proceed with the adoption of

Roman.

76. The actions and omissions ofBethany, its agents, servants, and employees

evidenced a deliberate and willful desire to further Bethany's own interests and business

objectives at the expense of the Harshaws.

77. Bethany exhibited a reckless, if not intentional, disregard for the interests of the

Harshaws.

78. The Harshaws reasonably relied on the statements and representations made and

provided to them by Bethany, believing those statements and representations to be accurate

accounts of Roman's condition. The Harshaws so relied because Bethany was the Harshaws'

13


adoption specialist and agent, and Bethany had infonned the Harshaws that full, complete, and

accurate medical and background infonnation would be provided to them.

79. The Harshaws reasonably relied on the false, inaccurate, misleading, and/or

materially incomplete statements and representations provided to them by Bethany, believing

those statements and representations to be accurate accounts ofRoman's condition because,

among other things, Bethany was privy to infonnation not available to the Harshaws regarding

the condition ofRoman.

80. The Harshaws' reliance on the aforementioned false, inaccurate, misleading,

and/or materially incomplete statements and representations ofBethany was reasonable and

justified.

81. But for Bethany's aforementioned false, inaccurate, misleading, and/or materially

incomplete statements and representations to the Harshaws, the Harshaws would neither have

pursued nor completed the adoption ofRoman.

82. As a direct and proximate result of the false, inaccurate, misleading, and/or

materially incomplete statements and representations ofBethany, the Harshaws have suffered,

and will continue to further suffer, damages, including but not limited to, the costs of past,

present, and future medical and psychological care and treatment for Roman.

83. As a further direct and proximate result of the false, inaccurate, misleading,

and/or materially incomplete statements of Bethany, the Harshaws and Roman were damaged in

one or more of the following ways:

a) The Harshaws were denied their right to make an infonned choice as to

whether or not to proceed with the adoption ofRoman. Had Bethany

fully and accurately disclosed to the Harshaws the complete history and

14


background of Roman's medical condition, as set forth herein, the

Harshaws would not have proceeded with the adoption of Roman.

b) As a direct and proximate result of Bethany's conduct in not disclosing

information to the Harshaws prior to the final adoption hearing in the

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, as set forth herein, the Harshaws have been

required to pay thousands ofdollars for the reasonable and necessary

medical care for, and treatment of, Roman, and the Harshaws will be

required to pay significant monies for the medical care and treatment

required for Roman in the future.

c) As a direct and proximate result ofBethany's conduct in not disclosing the

information as set forth herein to the Harshaws even after the adoption

was finalized, the Harshaws were foreclosed from obtaining appropriate

medical treatment for Roman at an earlier date, thus denying Roman the

availability of earlier treatment for his medical condition. As a result, the

Harshaws have expended and will continue to expend thousands ofdollars

for past, present, and future medical and psychological care for Roman.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William G. Harshaw, and Julie A. Harshaw, individually and

as the parents and guardians of their son, Roman Alexander Harshaw, a minor, respectfully

request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of

$75,000, plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such further relief as this

Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATIONWILLIAM G. AND JULIE A. HARSHAW V. BETHANY

15




85. Bethany was aware that the medical condition of Roman, as well as the

information pertaining to that condition were material to the Harshaws' decision regarding the

possible adoption ofRoman.

86. On information and belief, Bethany had material information in its possession or

available to it prior to the finalization ofthe adoption ofRoman, and knew or should have known

that such information was material and relevant to the Harshaws' decisions and that Bethany's

failure to disclose such information to the Harshaws would affect the Harshaws' decisions

regarding the possible adoption of Roman.

87. As a licensed adoption agency in the State of Michigan providing services to

children and families, Bethany had a duty to fully and accurately disclose such information to the

Harshaws.

88. The Harshaws reasonably relied on Bethany to supply them with all available

information regarding the medical condition ofRoman prior to the adoption, because Bethany

was privy to such information, and because Bethany had informed the Harshaws that full,

complete and accurate medical information would be provided to them.

89. The Harshaws reasonably relied on Bethany to supply them with all available

information regarding the medical condition ofRoman prior to the adoption because such

information was not otherwise available to the Harshaws.

90. Bethany had a duty and/or assumed a duty to fully disclose to the Harshaws all

relevant and material information in its possession or available to Bethany regarding the medical

condition of Roman.

91. Bethany breached its duty to the Harshaws in one or more of the following ways:

16


a) Bethany misrepresented Roman's medical condition to the Harshaws prior

to the final adoption hearing in Krasnoyarsk Regional Court;

b) Bethany failed to disclose to the Harshaws all of the relevant and material

information in Bethany's possession or control or available to Bethany or

its representatives regarding Roman's medical condition;

c) Bethany failed to investigate the material and relevant information

pertaining to Roman's medical condition that was reasonably available to

Bethany; and

d) Bethany misrepresented that Dr. Dubrovsky had examined and evaluated

Roman and that Roman was medically healthy prior to the Harshaws

adopting Roman; and

e) Bethany failed otherwise to assist the Harshaws in their desire to adopt a

child.

92. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Bethany, the

Harshaws were damaged as set forth above.

93. The Harshaws' reliance on the foregoing statements and representations of

Bethany was reasonable and justified.

94. IfBethany had fulfilled its duty to the Harshaws, the Harshaws would not have

proceeded with the adoption ofRoman.






17


COUNT III - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DISCLOSEWILLIAM G. AND JULIE A. HARSHAW V. BETHANY

95. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 94 above as if the


96. Bethany owed a duty to the Harshaws to provide them with all relevant and

material medical infom1ation pertaining to Roman's condition prior to the Harshaws' adoption of

Roman.

97. Bethany negligently failed to fulfill its duty to the Harshaws.

98. Bethany's negligence was the proximate cause ofthe damages and injury suffered

by the Harshaws as set forth above.

99. Bethany is liable to the Harshaws for the damages and injury suffered by them.






COUNT IV-NEGLIGENCEWILLIAM G. AND JULIE A. HARSHAW, AS PARENTS AND GUARDIANS OF

ROMAN A. HARSHAW V. BETHANY



18


101. Bethany owed a duty to Roman to furnish the Harshaws with the medical and

family records pertaining to Roman that were in Bethany's possession or control or that were

reasonably available to Bethany in a reasonable amount of time.

102. Bethany negligently failed to fulfill its duty to furnish these records to Roman

within a reasonable time.

103. Bethany's negligence was the proximate cause of damages and injuries suffered

by Roman in that the Harshaws and Roman's doctors were prevented from providing Roman

effective treatment and/or no treatment at al1.

104. Bethany is liable to Roman for the damages and injuries suffered by him.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William G. Harshaw, and Julie A. Harshaw, as the parents and

guardians of their son, Roman Alexander Harshaw, a minor, respectfully request that judgment

be entered in their favor and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000, plus interest,

punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such further relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 31, 2008

Samuel C. Totaro, Jr.Elissa B. HeinrichsMELLON WEBSTER & SHELLY, P.C.Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs William G. and

RYNBRANDT&Attorneys for

By:

19


Julie A. Harshaw87 N. Broad StreetDoylesto\\-n, PA 18901215-348-7700

PLAINTIFF'VERIFICATION

William G. and Julie A. Harshaw hereby declare hereby declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing Verified Complaint and Demand for JUl)' is true and correct.

~-aiil~Julie A. Harshaw

20

Documents

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN …graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100428ADOPT/adopt...Apr 28, 2010 · Case 1:08-cv-00104-PLM Document 1 Filed 01/31/2008 ... agent,