Share

Santa Fe Personal Injury Law Blog

Monday, January 30, 2017

Class Action Lawsuit Against Dr. Rosenschein and Presbyterian Hospital

On January 21, 2017, our firm filed a class action lawsuit against Presbyterian Hospital and Dr. Rosenschein.  A copy of the Complaint is below.  If your child was treated by Dr. Rosenschein, we would like to hear from you.  Please contact us at 505-954-4868 or fill out a consult request on our website.  We look forward to speaking with you.  

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

JANE DOE NO. 1, individually and 
on behalf of her minor child; and
JANE DOE NO. 2, individually and on behalf 
of her minor child, and ALL 
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.:  

PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC. and GUY 
ROSENSCHEIN, M.D.,

Defendants.


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION AND CREDENTIALING

PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 1 and JANE DOE NO. 2, individualy, and on behalf of their minor children, and for all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), hereby bring a class action pursuant to Rule 1-023, NMRA and NMSA 1978, §41-4-1, et seq.  In support of their claims, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages from DEFENDANTS PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. (“Presbyterian”) and GUY ROSENSCHEIN, M.D. (“Dr. Rosenchein”) for actions that violated the innocence and trust of infants, young boys and girls, and their families who placed faith in Presbyterian and its doctor to receive appropriate care and treatment at Presbyterian facilities.  Patients and their families agreed to receive treatment from Dr. Rosenchein, a physician who Presbyterian represented to them as being an experienced, well-qualified pediatric urologist and surgeon.  However, Plaintiffs have since learned that their children were in fact treated by a depraved sexual predator who used the position and authority wrongfully bestowed upon him by Presbyterian to engage in pedophilia and voyeurism for his own personal gratification.

THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

2. Plaintiffs are residents of the State of New Mexico.
3. This case is being filed anonymously because of the extremely sensitive nature of the conduct involved and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.  Moreover, the case is filed anonymously because it involves minors.  
4. Defendant Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Inc. (“Presbyterian”) is a New Mexico non-profit corporation located at 1100 Central Avenue S.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and is a resident of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
5. Defendant Guy Rosenschein, M.D. is a resident of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
6. At all material times, Dr. Rosenschein was a pediatric urologist and surgeon who was licensed to practice medicine in the State of New Mexico.  During the time that he practiced as a pediatric urologist and surgeon in New Mexico, Dr. Rosenschein was an actual and/or apparent agent, servant, and/or employee of Presbyterian. By reason of his employment at Presbyterian, Dr. Rosenschein was given substantial power or authority over the vulnerable infants and minor children who were placed in his care. 
7. At all material times, agents, servants, medical staff members, and/or employees of Presbyterian including Dr. Rosenschein, were acting in the course and scope of their authority, agency, service, and/or employment for Presbyterian.
8. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 1 is the mother of a minor patient treated by Dr. Rosenschein at a healthcare facility operated by Presbyterian. 
9. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2 is the legal guardian/custodian of a minor patient of Dr. Rosenschein.  The patient was seen by Dr. Rosenchein at a Presbyterian facility.  
10. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) exclusive of punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  
11. Venue is proper in Bernalillo County because Presbyterian and Dr. Rosenchein are residents of Bernalillo County.
12. All Defendants are New Mexico residents.
13. Upon information and belief, nearly all, if not all, Class Members are New Mexico residents.  Well in excess of 70% of the Class Members are New Mexico residents. 
14. Class Members principal injuries all occurred in New Mexico.      
15. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.  

PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS AND CLASS-WIDE ALLEGATIONS

16. On or about November 7, 2016, a detective of the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s Office obtained a search warrant to search Dr. Rosenschein’s residence.  Upon searching the residence, the detective found a 16-year-old boy in Dr. Rosenschein’s bed wearing nothing but his underwear.  The boy was a former patient of Dr. Rosenschein’s.  Detectives also found numerous electronic devices, some of which were encrypted and required further analysis.  A thumb drive that was not encrypted contained approximately 1,100 images and 78 videos of child pornography.  During an interview following the search of his residence, Dr. Rosenschein accepted responsibility for the thumb drive and admitted that he is sexually attracted to underage 
 males.  The data from the thumb drive containing the child pornography indicated that it was viewed as recently as May 2016.   
17. Following the execution of the first search warrant, federal law enforcement officers learned that there was a “secret room” inside Dr. Rosenchein’s residence.  They obtained a second search warrant to search the home and found the secret room.  During their search, the officers found five printed photographs depicting a minor male child who was approximately 11 to 15 years of age.  Four of the photos depicted the child nude in the shower.    
18. In addition to the foregoing, law enforcement seized an iPhone 6 from Dr. Rosenchein’s residence.  The forensic analysis of this phone revealed approximately one dozen photographs taken in a hospital or medical setting.  Several of the photographs depict close up views of infant children’s genitalia.  Other photographs depict the breasts of a child just entering puberty, which could be a male or female.  The fact that the photographs were taken on an iPhone 6 (which was released for sale in September 2014) establishes that the children in the photographs were most likely Presbyterian patients.    
19. Other photographs and/or videos of infants and children have been taken and either have yet to be discovered or were destroyed. Indeed, given Dr. Rosenchein’s admitted sexual interest in underage children and his position at Presbyterian as a pediatric urologist and surgeon, it is most likely that there were many other photographs, videos, and similarly improper and illegal actions taken by Dr. Rosenchein while he was at Presbyterian.  
20. Because Dr. Rosenchein was a practicing pediatric urologist – a specialty in which Dr. Rosenchein is cloaked with authority to examine and touch children’s genitals – Dr. Rosenchein had frequent contact and exposure to his young patients’ genitals.  Given his admitted attraction to underage males, and given that he took personal photographs of males and females in the hospital setting, it is believed and alleged that Rosenchein examined his young patients’ genitals for his personal gratification, rather than solely for medically appropriate reasons.  A pedophile was given unfettered acces to the objects of his desire under the guise of being a trusted Presbyterian physician.  
21. Dr. Rosenchein abused his authority and his position of trust to the serious detriment of Class Members.  When he examined patients, he made inappropriate remarks about the size of children’s genitals, which is further proof that he was viewing the children through the eyes of a pedophile, rather than as a physician.  
22. Dr. Rosenchein further abused this position of trust given the fact that upon his arrest, he was found with a 16-year-old former patient in his bed.  According to a finding in the criminal case, Dr. Rosenchein “understands how to ‘groom’ children so that they trust him and will agree to spend time with him. And although both John Doe 1 and Dr. Rosenschein denied having a sexual relationship, the fact that his former patient was found in his bed in only his underwear suggests that the relationship was not entirely platonic.”    
23. Dr. Rosenchein is currently in federal custody facing charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.  According to court records, “evidence in this case indicates that Dr. Rosenchein possessed more than one thousand images and videos of child pornography, many of which involve prepubescent minor males.  Dr. Rosenchein kept these images literally at his fingertips – on a thumb drive attached to a key chain found in his vehicle.”  
24. In a decision denying release of Dr. Rosenchein, the court made the following finding:
[Dr. Rosenchein’s] history suggests that he is a danger to children, and that he is willing to use his position as a pediatric surgeon to gain access to minors for purpose of engaging in inappropriate behavior.  Dr. Rosenchein admitted that he sometimes is sexually attracted to underage males. . . . Dr. Rosenchein also had several photographs on his phone that depict close-up views of genitalia in what appear to be a medical or hospital setting. 
25. As the court stated, Dr. Rosenschein’s actions and history demonstrate “that the recent charges against him are not an aberration.”
26. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are left in utter dismay over the known fact that Presbyterian allowed a pedophile access to minors at its facility.  They are further alarmed that Presbyterian, apparently, allowed Dr. Rosenchein to take illicit photographs of patients, to meet underage children that he attempted to groom for his own gratification, and to invade the privacy and innocence of pediatric patients when conducting examinations for his personal sexual gratification rather than solely for the treatment and diagnosis of medical conditions.  
27. As the United States Supreme Court held in Paoline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014), the harm that child pornography inflicts on children is “devastating.”  As a “consumer” of child pornography, Dr. Rosenchein “encourages others to sexually abuse young children to create pornography.”  
28. As cited by the United States Attorney in Dr. Rosenchein’s criminal case, several studies report that child pornography offenses are indicative of hands-on offenses.  See The 'Butner Study' Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders, Michael Bourke and Andres Hernandez, Journal of Family Violence, 2009 (child pornography offenders are “more likely than not” to have engaged in the hands-on abuse of a child); Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia, Seto, Cantor & Blanchard, 2006 (child pornography offending is a “stronger diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child victims.”).  Here, the Class Members and Court are not left to simply speculate whether Dr. Rosenchein has or will engage in hands-on contact with minors; he admitted to previously having sexual contact with a minor overseas.  Furthermore, the very position that Presbyterian bestowed on Dr. Rosenchein gave him hands-on contact with minors’ genitalia on an almost daily basis.    
29. On information and belief, because Dr. Rosenschein was brazen enough to take at least a dozen photographs at Presbyterian’s facilities, it is certainly likely that he engaged in other inappropriate and illegal acts at those facilities during his tenure as a Presbyterian physician and employee.  
30. Dr. Rosenschein was performing examinations and providing medical care and treatment to minor children with ulterior motives in mind and was viewing the children entrusted to him as sexual objects, rather than as patients.  Such actions by Dr. Rosenchein breached the trust that Defendants promised all pediatric patients to provide them with care in a safe environment that was free from all forms of abuse, neglect, and harassment and that preserved their dignity.    
31. Presbyterian fired Dr. Rosenschein approximately one day after he was taken into federal custody.  Dr. Rosenschein also lost his hospital privileges as well as his medical license.
32. Presbyterian engaged in a quick effort to spin the story in its favor.  Days after Dr. Rosenchein’s arrest, and without full knowledge and investigation of the facts and circumstances involving Dr. Rosenchein’s predatory activities, Presbyterian gave interviews and sent letters to patients and parents assuring them Dr. Rosenchein was not engaged in inappropriate conduct at Presbyterian.    
33. To the contrary, Presbyterian policy prohibits taking photographs of patients on a personal cellular telephone.  Yet, it failed to enforce its policy.  Additionally, no legitimate basis exists to claim that pictures of boys’ and girls’ genitalia and a child’s exposed chest on the personal iPhone of an admitted pedophile is “clinically appropriate”.  The iPhone 6 was released in 2014 – between 2014 and his arrest in 2016, Dr. Rosenchein was a Presbyterian doctor who saw patients at Presbyterian facilities.  The photographs were most likely taken at a Presbyterian facility and are most likely Presbyterian patients.      
34. For Dr. Rosenchein’s patients, the hollow assurance that nothing inappropriate happened at Presbyterian is simply a cover-up by a corporation that allowed a pedophile access to the most vulnerable members of the community.  

THE CLASS

35. Plaintiffs bring and prosecute this action pursuant to Rule 1-023, NMRA as a class action for themselves and as representatives of, and on behalf of, all other pediatric patients of Dr. Rosenschein during his tenure at Presbyterian.  
36. On information and belief, the putative Class Members total more than 500 pediatric patients who were examined, cared for, and treated by Dr. Rosenschein during this tenure at Presbyterian. Joinder of all, or even a majority of, the Class herein is impracticable, if not impossible.
37. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and hereby allege that most of the Class Members are residents of the State of New Mexico or were residents of the State of New Mexico at the time they were examined, cared for, and treated by Dr. Rosenschein.
38. The Class is defined as follows:
All persons who were under the age of 18 when they were seen, examined or treated by Dr. Rosenschein at any Presbyterian facility; 
39. The questions of law and fact in this case are uniquely common to all Class Members.
40. There are common questions of law and fact in this action that are not only common to the class, but which predominate over any question affecting only individuals.  The predominating questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Dr. Rosenschein was an actual and/or apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Presbyterian at all times relevant herein;
b. Whether, and to what extent, Dr. Rosenschein wrongfully intruded upon the privacy and seclusion of the Class Members; 
c. Whether, and to what extent, Presbyterian allowed Dr. Rosenchein, a confessed pedophile, to have access to pediatric patients when it knew or should have known that Dr. Rosenchein would intrude on the privacy of the Class Members.   
d. Whether Defendants obtained informed consent for Dr. Rosenchein’s improper and medically unnecessary photographing, viewing and physical touching of minor patients and, if so, whether such consent was obtained based on false pretenses due to Defendants’ failure to disclose that Dr. Rosenchein had illicit purposes in mind for the wrongful physical touching of his patients.
e. Whether Dr. Rosenschein was aided in accomplishing his wrongful acts by the virtue of his agency relationship with Presbyterian and the authority provided to him by Presbyterian;
f. Whether Presbyterian’s actions and/or alleged failures to act, including its alleged negligent failure to properly investigate, hire, credential, qualify, select, monitor, grant staff privileges to, and supervise Dr. Rosenschein, directly and proximately resulted in foreseeable injuries or damages to the Class Members.
41. The commonality of issues of law and fact in this case are clear.  Many of the Class Members are unaware of their rights to prosecute a claim against Defendants.  This Class Action can be managed without undue difficulty because the Class Representative Plaintiffs will vigorously pursue the interests of the class by virtue of the fact that Plaintiffs have suffered the same injuries as other Class Members.
42. This action is also properly maintainable as a Class in that questions of law or fact common to members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy between the Class and Defendant.
43. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, who are representative parties, are typical of the claims of the Class Members.
44. The Class Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Both Class Representatives have children who have been seen, touched, examined and treated by Dr. Rosenchein.  The interests of the Class Representatives and of all other members of the Class are identical, and the Class Representatives are cognizant of their duties and responsibilities to the Class.
45. The class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
46. Similar issues were certified in two cases involving physician misconduct Jane Doe v. Bradley, C.A. No. N10C-05-023, Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County and Jane Doe No. 1 et al. v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital et al., Case No. 24-C-13-001041, Baltimore City Circuit Court, State of Maryland, which further proves the appropriateness of this Class.
47. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a Class Action in this litigation are insignificant, especially when weighed against the virtual impossibility of affording adequate relief to the individuals through hundreds, if not thousands, of separate actions.
48. Additionally, Class Members are easily identifiable.  Upon learning of Dr. Rosenchein’s arrest, Presbyterian sent letters to Dr. Rosenchein’s past patients informing them of Dr. Rosenchein’s arrest and, falsely, telling them that nothing inappropriate happened at Presbyterian facilities.  Therefore, Defendants are in possession of the identity of all Class Members without experiencing undue burden.  
49. A class action is most beneficial to all parties because it provides a single forum to litigate the claims of hundreds of minors.  Requiring that individual suits proceed would result in protracted litigation for, potentially, decades.  Requiring individual suits would also result in earlier filed claims potentially exhausting limited funds, thereby creating inequity among class members and creating a race to the courthouse.  The class action would prevent those unwanted and detrimental consequences of requiring individual claims.  
50. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced in Class Actions, and therefore, Plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately represent the interests of the Class.

COUNT I 
(Intrusion upon the Plaintiffs’ Seclusion – Invasion of Privacy – Against All Defendants)

51. The preceding allegations are realleged as if set forth herein.
52. While an agent and employee of Presbyterian, Dr. Rosenchein intruded upon the solitude, seclusion or private affairs and concerns of his pediatric patients by examining, viewing or photographing their genitalia and breasts and undertaking other improper examinations, touching, treatment or care.  
53. Dr. Rosenchein has confessed to distributing child pornography.  Given this confession, Dr. Rosenchein likely distributed improper images of patients to consumers of child pornography.  Indeed, Dr. Rosenchein’s arrest is based on evidence that he was distributing child pornography in July and August of 2016.  
54. Defendants also invaded the rights of privacy of Plaintiffs and the Class Members who were not photographed, but were treated, touched, and examined by a pedophile, who was the apparent agent and/or employee of Presbyterian, for his own personal gratification rather than solely for medical treatment and diagnosis.  This includes any patients who were groomed by Dr. Rosenchien and lured into meeting him away from Presbyterian.      
55. Dr. Rosenschein’s intrusion is outrageous and offensive to reasonable individuals including Plaintiffs and the Class Members and was unwarranted and unjustified thereby constituting invasion of privacy.
56. As a result of Dr. Rosenschein’s acts in photographing children’s genitalia and breasts and other improper touching, examinations or care in violation of all standards of decency, morality and privacy, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain, severe emotional anguish and psychological distress, fear, anxiety, indignity, humiliation, shame, mortification, embarrassment, and other past, present, and future damages arising from their physical, mental, and emotional injuries. 
57. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class Members, are substantial, continuing, and permanent.  
58. Dr. Rosenschein was aided in accomplishing his wrongful acts by virtue of the agency relationship between himself and Presbyterian and the authority provided to him by Presbyterian. Presbyterian is directly and vicariously liable for Dr. Rosenchein’s conduct and the resulting damages to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

COUNT II 
 (Lack of Informed Consent – Against All Defendants)

59. The preceding allegations are realleged as if set forth herein.
60. At all material times, Dr. Rosenschein was an actual or apparent agent, employee or servant of Presbyterian.
61. In his role as an actual or apparent agent, employee and/or servant of Presbyterian, Dr. Rosenschein took pictures of the genitalia and breasts of young children on his personal cell phone and, potentially, with other devices as well.  Dr. Rosenschein did not seek or obtain the informed consent of his patients or their parents before taking pictures of his patients’ bodies.   Consent was not attempted, and none was given.
62. In his role as an actual or apparent agent, employee and/or servant of Presbyterian, Dr. Rosenschein treated, touched, examined and engaged in improper physical touching of Plaintiffs and the Class Members without their informed consent.  Consent was not given due to the failure to disclose that Dr. Rosenchein had illicit purposes for his wrongful physical touching of his patients.
63. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered physical pain, severe emotional anguish and psychological distress, fear, anxiety, indignity, humiliation, shame, mortification, embarrassment, and other past, present, and future damages arising from physical, mental, and emotional injuries. 
64. Dr. Rosenschein was aided in accomplishing his wrongful acts by virtue of the agency and employment relationship between himself and Presbyterian and the authority provided to him by Presbyterian. Presbyterian is directly and vicariously liable for Dr. Rosenschein’s conduct and the resulting damages to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

COUNT III
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Against All Defendants)

65. The preceding allegations are realleged as if set forth herein.
66. Dr. Rosenschein’s conduct, including photographing his patients during examination and/or touching and examining patients with illicit purposes in mind without their authorization and consent was intentional and/or reckless.  Dr. Rosenschein’s conduct was extreme, outrageous, and unreasonable and occurred while he was acting as an agent and/or employee of Presbyterian.  
67. As a result of Dr. Rosenchein’s actions, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered, and will suffer in the future, severe emotional distress, physical pain, severe emotional anguish and psychological distress, fear, anxiety, indignity, humiliation, shame, mortification, embarrassment, and other past, present, and future damages arising from physical, mental, and emotional injuries.  Such injuries are substantial, continuing, and permanent.  
68. The emotional distress that has been sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class Members was the natural and proximate result of the ongoing wrongful, unlawful and outrageous conduct on the part of Defendants. 
69. Dr. Rosenschein was aided in accomplishing his wrongful acts by virtue of the agency and/or employment relationship between himself and Presbyterian and the authority provided to him by Presbyterian. Presbyterian is directly and vicariously liable for Dr. Rosenschein’s conduct and the resulting damages to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

COUNT IV
(Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision and Credentialing – Against Presbyterian)

70. The preceding allegations are realleged as if set forth herein.
71. At all material times, Dr. Rosenschein was an actual and/or apparent, duly authorized agent, servant, and/or employee of Presbyterian.  Presbyterian credentialed Dr. Rosenchein and granted him staff privileges that allowed him to practice medicine at Presbyterian facilities.
72. Presbyterian was aware that each of the children Dr. Rosenchein undertook to examine or treat was in a subservient position to Dr. Rosenchein and, thus, was at risk of abuse or exploitation by Dr. Rosenchein.  Dr. Rosenchein was in a position of authority with all of his patients and he abused that position of authority.
73. The potential for Dr. Rosenchein to exploit his position of power as an adult and a pediatric urologist was compounded by the fact that it took place in the aura of a hospital setting where no limits were apparent to the children on what Dr. Rosenchein could say or do, despite the fact that children’s genitalia were always an object of any examination or discussion due to Dr. Rosenchein’ specialty as a pediatric urologist.  
74. Despite the obvious nature of the dangers presented by Dr. Rosenchein’s dominant position as an adult and physician, Presbyterian, by hiring Dr. Rosenchein, allowed him to focus on the children’s genitalia as a matter of examination and discussion, with the implication that anything he did or said in that context was countenanced by the hospital.  
75. Presbyterian failed to take the necessary steps to prevent Dr. Rosenchein from abusing and exploiting his patients.  
76. At all material times, Presbyterian had the responsibility to assure and maintain patient safety and privacy for members of the public who received treatment from its agents, servants, and/or employees, such as physicians, including Dr. Rosenchein, who were medical staff members and/or enjoyed hospital privileges.
77. At all material times, Presbyterian had a duty to properly investigate, credential, qualify, select, monitor, supervise, and retain only competent physicians and surgeons who practice medicine and/or surgery in accordance with the standards of care and who do not engage in improper, unlawful or inappropriate behavior including but not limited to violations of internal protocols established by Presbyterian.  Presbyterian also had a duty to discover, stop, and report any improper, illegal and/or unprofessional activities of which it knew or should have known.  
78. At all material times, Presbyterian had a duty under applicable standards of medical practice and common law to promulgate proper and effective standards, procedures, protocols, systems and rules to ensure quality care, safety, and privacy of its patients.
79. Presbyterian knew or should have known that Dr. Rosenschein engaged in improper, unlawful and unprofessional conduct by photographing and/or videotaping his patients without their consent or authorization.  Additionally, Presbyterian knew or should have known that Dr. Rosenschein engaged in improper, unlawful and unprofessional conduct by touching and examining his patients without their consent or authorization. 
80. Presbyterian breached its duties to Plaintiffs and the Class Members by negligently hiring, failing to investigate, credential, qualify, select, monitor and supervise its medical personnel, including Dr. Rosenchein and to discover, stop and report Dr. Rosenschein;s improper, illegal, and/or unprofessional activities.  
81. Specifically, Presbyterian breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs and the Class Members by:
a. Negligently failing to properly supervise and oversee Dr. Rosenschein;
b. Negligently credentialing Dr. Rosenschein;
c. Knowing or having the facts and information to know about Dr. Rosenschein’s perverse activity but negligently failing to report, stop and/or prevent its continuation;
d. Negligently failing to observe Dr. Rosenschein’s perverse activity;
e. Negligently failing to train staff to recognize and report perverse conduct of this type;
f. Negligently failing to have or enforce policies and procedures that would prevent the type of perversion engaged in by Dr. Rosenchein;
g. Negligently allowing Dr. Rosenschein to examine patients without a parent or chaperon present during examinations and procedures.
h. Failing to properly investigate Dr. Rosenschein during his employment and/or association with Presbyterian;
i. Failing to take appropriate actions to ensure the safety and privacy of patients who came under Dr. Rosenschein’s care;
j. Failing to appropriately credential, qualify, select, investigate, monitor and supervise Dr. Rosenschein; and
k. Continuing Dr. Rosenschein’s medical staff privileges and employment when it knew or should have known that he engaged in wrongful, unlawful and outrageous conduct including, but not limited to, the videotaping and/or photography of the minor children, without their authorization or consent, and/or violating internal protocols, rules, systems, and procedures.
82. Presbyterian’s breaches of its duty of care constitute negligence, carelessness, and recklessness.
83. Presbyterian’s breaches of its duty of care caused Plaintiffs and the Class Members to suffer physical pain, severe emotional anguish and psychological distress, fear, anxiety, indignity, humiliation, shame, mortification, embarrassment, and other past, present, and future damages arising from physical, mental, and emotional injuries. The injuries they suffered are substantial, continuing, and permanent.  


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, demand that they be awarded damages together with equitable and injunctive relief as follows:
a. Certify this case as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 1-023 NMRA;
b. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
c. Appoint Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel;
d. Enter a judgment against Defendants, and each of them, finding that they are liable to Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated;
e. Award compensatory damages to each class member in an amount which exceeds $25,000, exclusive of punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees;
f. Award punitive damages;
g. Award the costs and expenses of this case, including attorneys’ fees;
h. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
i. Grant equitable relief for providing notice to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated; 
j. Allow trial by jury;
k. Award all other further and general relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

HUNT & MARSHALL, LLC

/s/ Lee R. Hunt    
Lee R. Hunt, Esq.
Stephen R. Marshall, Esq.
518 Old Santa Fe Trail, #501
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
(505) 954-4868
lee@huntandmarshall.com
steve@huntandmarshall.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs




Hunt & Marshall represent clients throughout New Mexico including but not limited to; Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Raton, Roswell, Los Alamos, and Las Vegas



© 2019 Hunt & Marshall | Disclaimer
536 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87505
| Phone: 505-954-4868 (HUNT)

Medical Malpractice | Personal Injury | Automobile Accidents | Nursing Home Neglect | Product Liability | Wrongful Death | Dangerous Drugs & Medical Devices | Civil Rights & Police Abuse | About The Firm

Google+

Law Firm Website Design by
Amicus Creative


© 2017 Hunt & Marshall | Disclaimer
518 Old Santa Fe Trail, #501, Santa Fe, NM 87505
| Phone: 505-954-4868 (HUNT)

Medical Malpractice | Personal Injury | Automobile Accidents | Nursing Home Neglect | Product Liability | Wrongful Death | Dangerous Drugs & Medical Devices | Civil Rights & Police Abuse | About The Firm

Google+

Law Firm Website Design by
Zola Creative