Negligent retention and supervision results in sexual abuse of in-patient at recovery facility.
The Case
- Case Name: Jane Doe v. Support Systems Homes, Inc.
- Court and Case Number: Santa Clara County Superior Court / 23CV410157
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, February 20, 2026
- Date Action was Filed: Thursday, January 19, 2023
- Type of Case: Sexual Abuse
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Socrates Manoukian
- Plaintiffs:
Jane Doe, 35
- Defendants:
Support Systems Homes, Inc.John Smith (pseudonym)
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $3,500,000
- Net Verdict or Award: $3,500,000
- Award as to each Defendant:
70% allocated to Support Systems Homes, Inc.
30% allocated to John Smith.
- Jury Polls: 12-0 liability
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Hooshmand Law Group, PC by Mark Hooshmand and Tyler Rougeau, San Francisco.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith by Joseph Salazar, Jr., Sacramento.
Wilson Elser by Jianlin Song, San Francisco.
The Experts
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Natalie Rasgon, M.D., psychiatry.
Mario San Bartolome, M.D., addiction medicine.
Marshall Moncrief, LMFT, counseling.
- Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Howard Friedman, Ph.D., psychology.
Kenneth Bachrach, Ph.D., psychology.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
In 2021, plaintiff sought treatment from defendant Support Systems Homes, Inc. for substance use. She first went in for detoxification and then in-patient treatment. Plaintiff resided in the in patient facility for 30 days.
She was assigned to a counselor who was not certified and who she alleged was not properly supervised.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
That the facility failed to properly supervise the counselor and failed to comply with its representation that it would provide the plaintiff with a safe environment 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
That because of Support Systems Homes, Inc.'s negligent retention and supervision of the counselor and the failure to check on and protect her safety, she was harmed when the counselor had repeated sexual contact with her in the facility. That the facility was mismanaged and understaffed.
Plaintiff testified that the intimate involvement occurred over a two-week period while she was in the facility and continued for an additional two weeks after she was discharged into the outpatient program.
- Defendant's Contentions:
That the facility properly supervised the counselor and that any improper contact happened after plaintiff was discharged from the facility.