Opinion
# 2021-058-012 Claim No. 126672
04-01-2021
GLADYS HUNT, as Guardian of the Person and Property of Annette Forbes v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Linnan & Fallon PC By: James D. Linnan, Esq. & Charlene S. Fallon, Esq. Hon. Letitia James, New York State Attorney General By: Aaron Marcus, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim alleging negligent supervision/failure to protect a resident of an Individualized Residential Alternative (IRA) dismissed after trial; Claimant failed to establish by the preponderance of the credible evidence that resident's exit from a second-floor window was reasonably foreseeable; Claimant also did not establish by the preponderance of the credible evidence that the IRA failed to provide adequate staff/training for staff.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-058-012 |
| Claimant(s): | GLADYS HUNT, as Guardian of the Person and Property of Annette Forbes |
| Claimant short name: | HUNT |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126672 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE E. LEAHY-SCOTT |
| Claimant's attorney: | Linnan & Fallon PC By: James D. Linnan, Esq. & Charlene S. Fallon, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, New York State Attorney General By: Aaron Marcus, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 1, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant Gladys Hunt, as Guardian of the Person and Property of Annette Forbes, brought this Claim for injuries sustained by Annette Forbes while a resident of Governeurs Lane Individualized Residential Alternative (hereinafter, the IRA). This decision follows a trial on the issue of liability only. Annette Forbes (Ms. Forbes) is a developmentally disabled adult female who at the time of the events at issue was under the care and custody of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and resided at the IRA. On June 27, 2015, Ms. Forbes exited her second-floor bedroom window and fell, sustaining injuries as a result thereof. Claimant alleges Defendant is liable for negligently supervising and/or failing to protect and keep Annette Forbes safe.
After the trial and submission of post-trial briefs, the Court inquired of the parties as to the Eleventh Affirmative Defense alleging Claimant lacks the capacity to bring this Claim. During discovery proceedings relative to this claim, Defendant averred it would be withdrawing the affirmative defense; however, the Court was not in receipt of a withdrawal of the defense. On January 8, 2021, Defendant confirmed to this Court, upon notice to Claimant, that the Eleventh Affirmative Defense was indeed withdrawn.
Claim ¶ 5.
The trial of this Claim was conducted on December 11, 2019 and January 27, 2020. Claimant called three witnesses: Marjorie Becker, Ms. Forbes' habilitation specialist at Tracy Creek Day Habilitation Center (Tracy Creek); Amy Cullen, a direct care aide and house manager at the IRA; and Janyce Clark, Ms. Forbes' treatment team leader. Claimant also introduced videotaped trial testimony of an expert, Ernest J. Gailor, a licensed professional engineer. Claimant introduced 17 Exhibits which were all received into evidence upon consent of Defendant. Defendant called one witness, Dr. Barry Warren, and introduced 16 Exhibits which were received into evidence upon consent of Claimant. At the conclusion of Claimant's case, Defendant made a motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the case; Claimant opposed; and the Court reserved decision. After the Defendant rested its case, Defendant renewed its motion dismissing the Claim; Claimant opposed; and the Court reserved decision. At the conclusion of trial, Claimant moved for a directed verdict; Defendant opposed; and the Court reserved decision.
The Court received into evidence Exhibits 1 through 14 inclusive, 16, 17, and 19.
The Court received into evidence Exhibits A through D inclusive and Exhibits F through Q inclusive.
After considering the testimony of all witnesses at trial, the exhibits received into evidence and reviewing the applicable law and arguments made by the parties, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of trial and dismisses the Claim.
FACTS
Ms. Forbes began living at the IRA on or about January 5, 2011. The IRA is a residential home located in a community among other residential homes, which provides housing and services to developmentally disabled individuals. At the time of this incident, the IRA housed 10 residents, of which Ms. Forbes was one. Ms. Forbes had a bedroom located on the second floor. Exhibit 14 are photographs of the IRA and of Ms. Forbes' bedroom. It appears from these photographs there are two windows in Ms. Forbes' bedroom. One window is adjacent to Ms. Forbes' bed and another window is behind a desk that has a television on it. Ms. Forbes resides in the IRA as she has been diagnosed with "Mild Mental Retardation, OCD, and Mood Disorder NOS." Additionally, she has past diagnoses of "ODD and Personality Disorder".
Exhibit 8 at 2.
The IRA provides for Ms. Forbes' physical, psychological, emotional, and social needs. Ms. Forbes' undergoes medical and psychiatric treatment; is provided medication; participates in a day habilitation program; and does chores, among other things. The IRA also provides Safeguards/Individual Plan of Protective Oversight (IPOP) for Ms. Forbes. Evidence at trial indicates Ms. Forbes demonstrates behavioral issues at the IRA with behavioral intervention, replacement behaviors, and supervision levels addressed in the IPOP.
On the night of June 16, 2015 to the early morning hours of June 17, 2015, Ms. Forbes turned off the alarm to an upstairs door that led to a balcony and an exterior stairwell and eloped from the IRA. She walked to Tracy Creek where she was found by Tracy Creek staff the next morning. Tracy Creek is a day habilitation program Ms. Forbes participates in and is approximately five miles from the IRA. The staff at the IRA was unaware of Ms. Forbes' elopement until they were informed by Tracy Creek staff the next morning at approximately 7:00 a.m. Immediately following the elopement, Ms. Forbes' level of supervision was changed to "15-min visual check x 24 hrs. Well being checklist will be started today." On June 23, 2015, Ms. Forbes' supervision was again revised to "Enhanced supervision-1:1 within 10 FEET; 1st and 2nd SHIFT (due to elopement) ASLEEP SUPERVISION: hourly bed checks; with staff providing zone coverage for the second floor. [Ms. Forbes'] room MUST be in view from the zone. [Ms. Forbes] may have privacy in the BEDROOM and BATHROOM; staff are to stand outside of door."
Exhibit L at 15.
Exhibit N at 11. "Hourly bed checks" has a line through it in this Exhibit which was explained during trial that supervision was changed on July 6, 2015 not requiring hourly bed checks.
On June 27, 2015, some four days later, Ms. Forbes' supervision was revised once again. In particular, "due to no incidents and [Ms.Forbes'] behavior have [sic] been stable throughout the week" the IRA decided to "discontinue 1:1 supervision but continue zone coverage on nites [sic] and 1:1 on days only to see if she is still in need of enhanced supervision." It was noted "[Ms. Forbes] has had a history of wandering away, but she states that she understands the consequences and safety risks of wandering. There had not been any recent attempts of [Ms. Forbes] wandering until the night before this ISP review where [she] eloped from the house without staff knowledge." On that same day, Ms. Forbes exited her second-floor bedroom window suffering injuries.
Exhibit L at 21.
Exhibit 7 at 2,3.
Marjorie Becker (Becker) testified she is a habilitation specialist and worked with Ms. Forbes for approximately three years at Tracy Creek. Becker explained she worked five days a week for approximately four hours each day and her responsibilities as a habilitation specialist included helping residents live independently and assisting in development of personalized plans. Becker described Ms. Forbes as a friendly resident who liked to spend time mostly with staff. According to Becker, Ms. Forbes enjoyed playing cards, reading books and bowling. Becker further described Ms. Forbes as fairly independent and a good student who functioned between a fourth and fifth grade level. Becker believed Ms. Forbes knew right from wrong, but if Ms. Forbes was determined to do something, she would just do it without appreciating the consequences. For example, Becker explained that, even after being corrected for a behavioral issue, such as taking food from others, Ms. Forbes would still engage in that activity. Becker testified that Ms. Forbes never attempted to elope from her day program. Becker further testified that Ms. Forbes returned to the day program following her elopement on June 16-17, 2015 and remained in the program until the time she exited her bedroom window on June 27, 2015. Becker indicated she found nothing unusual about Ms. Forbes' behavior during that time.
Amy Cullen (Cullen) testified she is a direct care aide who has worked 15 years with people with developmental disabilities. In June 2015, she was the house manager of the IRA and knew Ms. Forbes for approximately two years. Cullen described Ms. Forbes as a pleasant individual, outgoing, and helpful. Cullen believed Ms. Forbes was stubborn at times especially when she would make her mind up to do something.
Cullen testified that on June 16-17, 2015, Ms. Forbes eloped from a second floor, alarmed balcony door which had an on/off switch. Cullen checked the alarm switch the next morning and witnessed that it was in the "off" position. This balcony exit leads down steps onto the driveway. An alarm was immediately placed on Ms. Forbes' bedroom door temporarily after the elopement, and then its use was terminated approximately two or three days after it was installed. Cullen also explained there were alarms on four other exits in the IRA due to the actions of another resident and that such alarms were installed prior to Ms. Forbes' elopement on June 16-17, 2015.
Cullen testified that there was a total of 14 employees working at the IRA in June 2015. However, Cullen explained nine employees of the IRA were placed on administrative leave during an approximate nine-month investigation into Ms. Forbes' June 16-17, 2015 elopement incident. Cullen said it was difficult during the nine months to staff all shifts at the IRA. She requested volunteers and borrowed staff from other IRAs. She underscored that "when somebody new came to work there, whether it was one shift, they had to be trained and read the individuals IPOPs and behavior plans". Additionally, Cullen explained "nobody was allowed to work in the house unless they were trained properly." Cullen referred to a document called a "read and sign" which was introduced as Exhibit Q. This document indicated all IRA staff, including the staff working the evening and night shifts on June 26-27, 2015, were properly trained as they read residents' IPOPs and behavior plans.
Exhibit 11 at 68, lines 8-11.
id. at 68, lines 4-5.
Cullen also described the types of supervision at the IRA. In particular, Cullen explained arm's length supervision meant one-to-one supervision in which the resident and the supervising person are always within arm's length of each other. Zone coverage of a resident means that a supervising person must have the resident within their field of vision. However, a supervising person may not see a resident if they were permitted privacy behind a door. A resident is made aware if there is a one-to-one or zone supervision. Cullen testified that on the day of the exit out her bedroom window, Ms. Forbes was on one-to-one supervision during the day and zone supervision at night with permission to close her bedroom door for one shift only on a trial basis. Cullen stated Ms. Forbes would have known a worker was outside her bedroom door with zone supervision. According to Cullen, there were three properly trained workers employed in the house on the night Ms. Forbes exited her window, which represented a sufficient staffing level. All three employees had signed the "read and sign" document. Cullen testified she never thought Ms. Forbes would exit out her window. Cullen described that there were standard locks on the windows and the windows had screens. Thus, Ms. Forbes would have had to disengage the locking mechanism and take out the screen to exit.
Janyce Clark (Clark) testified that she was a treatment team leader with the responsibility of overseeing houses in the community supervising staff, residents, and clinicians. Clark testified to safety and security measures relative to Ms. Forbes. After the elopement of June 16-17, 2015, Clark recommended the immediate protection of Ms. Forbes by conducting 15-minute checks throughout the day. Thereafter, one-to-one supervision was imposed. Clark was not aware that after the June16-17, 2015 elopement, an alarm was placed on Ms. Forbes' bedroom door. Clark testified that it would not be necessary to have a bedroom door alarm since there was zone supervision in place. Additionally, Clark testified that hourly bed checks were in place on the night shifts of June 26-27, 2015. Clark explained there was a reduction in supervision between June 17 and June 26, 2015 from arm's length to zone after a psychologist, Susan Latham (Latham), spoke with Ms. Forbes regarding the June 16-17, 2015 incident.
Exhibit N at 11.
The Court reviewed the testimony of Ernest J. Gailor (Gailor). Gailor is a licensed professional engineer who provided testimony describing the IRA as well as restrictions that could have been placed on Ms. Forbes' bedroom window to protect her. As testified, those restrictions include a fixed window, a welded wire mesh instead of a screen, a window alarm, and security tabs to restrict the window from completely opening. Gailor also testified these proposed remedial measures to secure the bedroom window would not result in an extraordinary expenditure. Gailor opined that securing the bedroom window was not prevented or prohibited by any fire or general construction codes, laws, or regulations.
The Court reviewed Exhibits 16 and 17, the transcript and videotaped trial testimony of Ernest J. Gailor.
Defendant called Dr. Barry Warren (Dr. Warren) as its only witness. Dr. Warren received his bachelor's degree from Rutgers University in 1968 in Psychology; his master's degree from Brooklyn College in 1971 in the field of School Psychology; and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Albany in 1977 in the field of Educational Psychology. Dr. Warren has been employed over 40 years in the field of developmental disabilities. Since 1985, Dr. Warren has been employed as a consulting psychologist. Prior to this current employment, Dr. Warren was the Chief Psychologist for the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) for approximately 18 years. During his career at OMRDD, Dr. Warren was involved in assessing the appropriateness of levels of supervision and protection and was intimately involved in reviewing documents and cases. Dr. Warren opined that after Ms. Forbes' elopement of June 16-17, 2015, the IRA exercised due diligence in taking immediate action to protect her. He based this opinion upon the IPOP implemented after the June 16-17, 2015 elopement, as well as staff observation and case notes. Further, Dr. Warren testified that the IPOP in place before Ms. Forbes exited her bedroom window was within the acceptable standards of clinical practice. He based his opinion upon the IRA acting immediately in protecting Ms. Forbes' health and safety and increasing supervision and staffing levels regardless of cost.
The name of the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities was changed to the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities in 2010.
Exhibit N
Exhibit L
Dr. Warren testified that in order to be under the care of OPWDD, a person undergoes an evaluation and must meet the criteria of having a developmental disability. Dr. Warren reviewed reports, evaluations, and records relating to Ms. Forbes from 1983, 1989, 1990, and 1996 and testified these records consistently indicated Ms. Forbes possessed good cognitive skills with low to average range of intelligence. Ms. Forbes has a "dual diagnosis" meaning she suffers from a developmental disability and a mental illness: to wit, obsessive compulsive disorder and a mood disorder.
Exhibits A, B, C and D
Dr. Warren noted that a psychology report dated January 1996 was consistent with prior evaluations relative to Ms. Forbes' intellectual abilities. This report indicated that a Slosson Intelligence Test was administered with Ms. Forbes achieving a mental age of 10 years, 10 months with a resultant IQ of 68, placing her within the mild range of mental retardation. The 1996 report noted that these results were consistent with previous test results indicating cognitive stability over time. According to Dr. Warren, this mental age is noteworthy in that Ms. Forbes' would have the normal range of function to perform formal operations; to hypothesize and reason effectively; to make reasonable judgments; and test hypotheses. Dr. Warren opined that Ms. Forbes had the capacity to make reasonable judgments in maintaining her health and safety as evidence by her elopement of June 16-17, 2015. According to Dr. Warren, Ms. Forbes exercised good cognitive function and appreciated danger. He further testified that Ms. Forbes' cognitive ability permitted her to assess potential dangers. Relative to the June 16-17, 2015 elopement, Ms. Forbes was able to exit her room and travel to the day program safely. Notably, Ms. Forbes stopped to purchase snacks and stopped in a laundromat to warm up with no confrontation while enroute to Tracy Creek. Additionally, Dr. Warren noted that during a fire drill, Ms. Forbes had the ability to find alternative solutions for her own safety and knew what to do in an emergency or if a fire were to occur. Consequently, Dr. Warren opined he would have expected Ms. Forbes to appreciate and understand the dangers in exiting from her window.
Exhibit D
Additionally, Dr. Warren summarized that Ms. Forbes was doing very well at the IRA. He based this opinion upon a report dated June 4, 2015, where it is noted that Ms. Forbes had a good month. Staff notes from May 18, 2015 to June 27, 2015 also remarked that Ms. Forbes was doing well at home and in the community, and that her medications were either decreased or discontinued.
Exhibit J
Exhibit L
Ms. Forbes had an evaluation conducted by her psychologist, Latham, on June 17, 2015, the date she was found at Tracy Creek and brought back to the IRA, which also indicated Ms. Forbes had a good review period. In addressing Ms. Forbes' actions immediately after it occurred, Latham probed Ms. Forbes to ensure she understood what she did and whether she learned a lesson. Latham was assured by Ms. Forbes she would not elope from the IRA again. Further, a nursing note from June 17, 2015 indicated Ms. Forbes understood her elopement was wrong and that she was remorseful. Overall, Dr. Warren noted that Ms. Forbes was generally stable, happy, and experienced no major incidents in the preceding weeks prior to exiting her window, inclusive of the period between eloping to Tracy Creek and exiting her bedroom window.
id.
id.
Although the elopement was not documented in Ms. Forbes' IPOP which preceded her exit from her bedroom window, Dr. Warren opined that support, safety and security measures were documented on the IPOP, implemented, and said plan was appropriately in place for the benefit of Ms. Forbes. Dr. Warren testified that the best predictor of future behaviors is past behaviors. Relative to Ms. Forbes, Dr. Warren noted she never attempted to abscond from a window before and was generally doing well. Despite Ms. Forbes' prior history of maladaptive behaviors, stubbornness, and making poor choices, Dr. Warren opined that, given her level of functioning, cognitive abilities, and intelligence, Ms. Forbes would not be a risk to exit her bedroom window and such conduct was not foreseeable. He further opined that Defendant acted within acceptable standards of clinical practice in the manner in which they provided oversight and support to Ms. Forbes after the elopement of June 16-17, 2015.
DISCUSSION
The issue to be decided is whether the State was negligent in failing to supervise and/or protect Ms. Forbes from reasonably foreseeable harm. It is well settled that "[t]he State owes patients in its institutions a duty of reasonable care to protect them from injury, whatever the source" (Killeen v State of New York, 66 NY2d 850, 851 [1985]). The State has a duty to protect those under its care from injuries that may "reasonably be anticipated" (Evans v State of New York, 117 AD2d 581, 582 [2d Dept 1986]). The degree of care "owed to such individuals is measured by the patient's physical and mental ailments as known to the hospital [or facility] officials, physicians and employees" (Dawn VV. v State of New York, 47 AD3d 1048, 1050 [3d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]. The scope of the duty owed by the State as operator of group homes to the resident of those homes is, like any tort liability, "circumscribed by those risks which are reasonably foreseeable" (N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247, 253 [2002]). The State is not generally required to continually monitor a patient's every action, and its negligence cannot be presumed from the occurrence of an injury (see Rella v State of New York, 117 AD2d 591, 592 [2d Dept 1986]; Mochen v State of New York, 57 AD2d 719, 720 [4th Dept 1977]). To show that the actions that caused injury were reasonably foreseeable, the claimant must introduce evidence of prior "similar incidents . . . such that it should have anticipated the alleged incident and protected the plaintiff from it" (see Royston v Long Is. Med. Ctr., Inc., 81 AD3d 806, 807 [2d Dept 2011].
It is beyond dispute that Defendant owes Ms. Forbes a duty of care to reasonably protect her from injury; however, those injuries must be reasonably anticipated. Here, Claimant submits proof of a prior incident, to wit: Ms. Forbes' elopement of June 16-17, 2015. However, this Court concludes that the incident on June 16-17, 2015, whereby Ms. Forbes walked out of the IRA to Tracy Creek, is not sufficiently similar to Ms. Forbes' exiting a second-floor window on June 27, 2015 such that the latter incident was reasonably foreseeable. Indeed, the Court draws a distinction between walking out of a door and the drastic act of climbing out a second-floor bedroom window (see generally Browne v GMRI, Inc., 6 AD3d 640, 641 [2d Dept 2004] ["(a)lthough there were approximately five fistfights per year at this restaurant, these [incidents] were too dissimilar from the shooting to make it foreseeable"]). It is uncontroverted that Ms. Forbes' elopement of June 16-17, 2015 was unforeseeable. The Court finds, here too, exiting through a bedroom window is equally unforeseeable.
Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that the IRA staff failed to supervise Ms. Forbes. This Court concludes that the IRA took immediate steps to ensure the safety, security, and appropriate supervision of Ms. Forbes following the initial elopement. Supervision of Ms. Forbes after the elopement to Tracy Creek commenced with strict oversight by imposing 15-minute checks throughout the day, one-on-one supervision, zone supervision, and hourly bed checks. Evidence at trial demonstrated that Ms. Forbes' psychologist immediately discussed the elopement incident with Ms. Forbes ensuring Ms. Forbes understood her actions and would not exit the house again. Ms. Forbes returned to her day habilitation program at Tracy Creek where Becker did not witness any unusual behavior. Moreover, daily staffing notes indicated in the 10-day interval between walking to Tracy Creek and exiting her bedroom window, Ms. Forbes was doing well.
Claimant has been described as a pleasant and friendly woman who suffers from behavioral issues manifested in stubbornness and willfulness. These behavioral issues have been the subject of Ms. Forbes' medical and psychiatric treatment. She has been prescribed medication, counseling, as well as behavioral modifications and therapy. Her IPOPs addressed her conduct and set forth strategies for corrective actions and modifications. IPOPs instruct staff to offer positive reinforcement when Ms. Forbes makes good choices and engages in good behaviors. Supervision levels are dictated by how well a resident is performing in the IRA environment. Thus, the reduction in Ms. Forbes' supervision before exiting her bedroom window directly correlates to how well she was doing at that time and is evidenced by staff/observation notes.
see generally Exhibit L. --------
Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that the IRA failed to provide adequate staff and/or training to staff. There is uncontroverted evidence that, despite certain staff members being placed on administrative leave, there was a sufficient number of trained staff working the night Ms. Forbes exited her bedroom window; they were adhering to the safety, security and supervision plan in place that night; and that all staff working that night received training (see Mochen, 57 AD2d at 720 [holding the State cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by the claimant during his escape from a window at Buffalo State Hospital notwithstanding his history of 17 prior elopements from mental institutions where the evidence established the claimant was assigned to a closed ward and was monitored by staff prior to the incident]).
Dr. Warren credibly testified as to Ms. Forbes' cognitive and intellectual abilities in understanding and appreciating the consequences of her actions. Defendant is not required to provide unremitting supervision and monitor a resident's every action. Nevertheless, on the evening Ms. Forbes' exited her bedroom window, she was under enhanced supervision. Crediting Dr. Warren's testimony, the Court concludes Ms. Forbes should have appreciated the dangers inherent in exiting her second-floor bedroom window and was possessed of both the cognitive and intellectual capacity to understand those dangers.
Proposed alternative approaches advanced by Claimant to prevent Ms. Forbes from exiting from her bedroom window are speculative. These matters generally fall within the purview of professional judgment (see Genao v State of New York, 178 Misc 2d, 512, 516 [Ct Cl 1998] ["(t)he level of observation for a patient at a psychiatric facility is a determination entrusted to the judgment of medical professionals"]). The scope of a facility's duty to its patients must be viewed with the understanding that "there are certain risks inherent in any therapeutic program" (Killeen, 66 NY2d at 852). Although "this concept does not absolve the State of its responsibility to protect individuals in residential facilities, a balance must be struck between the consideration given to patients' needs and their safety, and the realities that confront caregivers at facilities" (J.K.P v State of New York, UID No. 2017-049-102 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., July 13, 2017]; see also N.X., 97 NY2d at 255). In this case, Claimant has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Forbes' exiting her second-floor bedroom window was conduct Defendant could reasonably have foreseen or prevented; thereby, warranting additional preventative measures.
Therefore, upon consideration of the testimony of the trial witnesses, observing their demeanor and assessing their credibility as well as reviewing all exhibits received at trial and reviewing the applicable law, this Court hereby grants Defendant's motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of trial and dismisses the Claim.
Accordingly, Claim Number 126672 is dismissed. Any and all other evidentiary rulings or motions upon which the Court may have previously reserved or which were not previously determined are hereby denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
April 1, 2021
Albany, New York
CATHERINE E. LEAHY-SCOTT
Judge of the Court of Claims