IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO

THE ESTATE OF HENRY TAYLOR ClIO Eadie Hill Trial Lawyers 3 100 East 45 St., Suite 218 Cleveland, Ohio 44127

) CASE NO. jl L \} 5Zi+l~V 28 A II: 2W ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) With Jury Demand ) ) Motion for Extension of Time to ) File Affidavit of Merit Attached ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

0dAPITAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., dba ) APITAL HEALTH CARE NETWORK ) e, 0 registered agent KENNETH J. BERNSEN )

5p20 Philadelphia Dr. ) _D~!_ay~t_on~,_O_H __ 45_4_1_5 )

Plaintiff,

vs.

CtA-RRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE 3 02 St Charles Drive S eubenville, OH 43952

and

3102 SAINT CHARLES DRIVE OPERATING CpMPANY, INC., dba CARRIAGE INN OF SfEUBENVILLE e{ 0 registered agent KENNETH J. BERNSEN 5020 Philadelphia Dr. ayton, OH 45415

and

CjARRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE, INC. er 0 registered agent ROBERT L HUFF 5p20 Philadelphia Dr. Dayton, OH 45415

and

C RRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE REAL ESTATE,LLC e{ 0 registered agent KENNETH J. BERNSEN 5p20 Philadelphia Dr. Dayton, OH 45415

and

) Defendants. ) -4----------~~====~---------

The Estate of Henry Taylor, through Doris Harris, its duly appointed

Administrator, and its Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, states and

avers upon information and belief:

INTRODUCTION

1. Henry Taylor died on February 26, 2017 as a result of Defendants' refusal

to provide basic medical and nursing care to Henry Taylor. Defendants' refusal to provide

these basic services caused Henry Taylor to suffer numerous pressure and bed sores,

infected wounds, urinary tract infections, dehydration, falls and ultimately his death as a

result of gangrene and sepsis.

2. This is a negligence, recklessness, and wrongful death action involving

Carriage Inn of Steubenville's lack of care injuring and killing Henry Taylor, which lack of

care was caused by Capital Health's systemic understaffing of its Carriage Inn facility.

3. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

4. Doris Harris is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of Henry

Taylor, as appointed by the Probate Court of Jefferson County in case number 2017 ES

155 before Probate Judge Joseph M. Corabi.

5. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Henry Taylor, the next

of kin of Henry Taylor, and anyone else entitled to compensation for the harms and losses

sustained as the result of the negligence and recklessness described herein or discovered

during the litigation.

2

6. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount necessary to punish the

above-named Defendants and deter Defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the

I future. 7. Plaintiff seeks complete medical records pursuant to R.C. 3701. 74 (C).

8. Plaintiff also requests attorneys' fees and the costs of this litigation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has Jurisdiction over the Defendants because, among other

fhings, all Defendants do, and all times relevant did, reside or have their domicile in the

State of Ohio, purposefully avail themselves of the laws of the state of Ohio, and/or

bommit tortious acts within the state of Ohio.

10. Venue is proper in Jefferson County under Civil Rule 3 (B) because, among

other reasons: (a) Defendants reside, domicile, carry on their principal place of business,

or practice medicine/nursing, in this county; and (b) part of the claim for relief arose in

his county, in which county Henry Taylor was injured and died.

11. Pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 10(D) (2), Plaintiff is filing a contemporaneous

otion for extension of time to file an affidavit of merit.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

12. The Defendants employ the care providers who were responsible for

ensuring Henry Taylor's care and safety.

I Inn of Steubenville.

13. Defendants manage, control, and/or employ the nursing staff at Carriage

14. Henry Taylor and his family looked to the Defendants for care based upon

heir representations.

3

15. The Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their

employees and agents (respondeat superior and agency liability) and/or independent

lontractors (Clark v. Southview agency by estoppel) .

CAPITAL HEALTH'S MANAGEMENT OF NURSING FACILITIES LIKE CARRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT

16. Defendants CARRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE, 3102 SAINT CHARLES

RIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC., which does business as CARRIAGE INN OF

6TEUBENVILLE, CARRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE REAL ESTATE, LLC, and

I ARRIAGE INN OF STEUBENVILLE, INC., are Ohio for-profit corporations owned and ontrolled by Defendant CAPITAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., dba CAPITAL HEALTH

CARE NETWORK ("Capital Health"), responsible for providing care and services to

I esidents of Carriage Inn of Steubenville, including Henry Taylor.

17. Capital Health is a private, for-profit company that holds itself out to the

public as providing skilled nursing & rehabilitative care, private-duty homecare, home I health care, assisted and independent living, out-patient therapy and hospice care to

IOhio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia residents in their homes, and at Capital Health's

acilities, including Carriage Inn of Steubenville.

18. Capital Health's for-profit model means its primary goal is to maximize

I rofit, measured by revenues (from residents and patients) minus expenses (the largest

fwhich is staffing costs).

19. For nursing homes generally, the largest individual revenue source is

residents (filling beds), and the largest individual expense is the cost of employing nursing

btaff to provide care to those residents. This creates a financial incentive to take on more

4

residents with greater care needs than the nursing staff can properly care for, a violation

I f federal nursing home regulations regarding staffing levels.

20. Capital Health uses its for-profit model to manage nursing homes, including

he amount and degree of care available, at numerous facilities throughout Ohio,

Including:

a. Carriage Inn of Cadiz (308 West Warren Street Cadiz, OH 43907)

b. Carriage Inn of Dayton (5040 Philadelphia Drive, Dayton, OH 45415)

c. Carriage Inn of Steubenville (3102 St. Charles Drive, Steubenville, OH

43952)

d. Gables Care Center (351 Lahm Drive, Hopedale, OH 43976)

e. Scioto Community (433 Obetz Road, Columbus, OH 43207)

f. Shiloh Springs Care Center (3500 Shiloh Springs Road, Trotwood, OH

45426)

g. Sunnyslope Care Center (102 Boyce Drive, Bowerston, OH 44695)

h. The Oaks of West Kettering (1150 West Dorothy Lane, Dayton, OH 45409)

21. Capital Health exercises actual control over the facilities' management and

operations to maximize profits, including control over facility-level:

a. Policies and procedures, including regarding resident care;

b. Finances, including obtaining credit and loans, guaranteeing loans (both at the corporate and individual facility level), maintaining funds and banking, obtaining, owning, and leasing facility land and buildings, and capital expenditures.

c. Budgeting, including controlling the amount of funds available for staffing facilities;

d. Personnel management, including hiring and firing, or having authority to hire and fire, the supervisory and management personnel in each facility;

5

e. Supervision of management, care providers, and staff in each facility, including compliance with federal and state regulations;

f. Employment, such as setting pay scales, shifts, and time and vacation policies;

g. Systems for training, monitoring, and supervising staff;

h. Medical record systems and management;

i. Financial control systems, including budgeting and payment processing;

j. Marketing, including setting the image and expectations residents and their family should expect at Capital Health facilities, and even the name of the facility;

k. Reporting procedures, including reporting to Medicare as to individual resident care and facility-wide issues.

22. Through this control, Capital Health makes decisions that affect the day-to-

I ay care of Carriage Inn of Steubenville residents, such as the resources available for

: roviding nursing staff and care to residents like Henry Taylor, meaning it is responsible

or the foreseeable harm that results from careless decisions while voluntarily exercising

hat control.

23. Capital Health is owned and controlled by Ken Bernsen (Chief Executive

<Officer), Josh Huff (Chief of Senior Housing Development), Sarah Manning (Chief of

I ommunity Design), and Kara Bernsen (Chief of Network Development).

I 24. Capital Health's Senior Care Division business unit, which runs Capital

kealth's skilled nursing facilities like Carriage Inn of Steubenville, is run by Mark

I nepper (Chief Operations Officer, Senior Care Division), Michele Glauser (Vice

,reSident of Sales & Marketing), Bryan Asher (Vice President of Clinical Services), Kara

Taytor (Corporate Director of Clinical Programming and Compliance), and Kim Bolen

(Corporate Director of Clinical Assessment).

6

25. The "corporate" team and their subordinates exercise control and

management over the facility-level position like administrator and director of nursing.

26. For example, Bryan Asher, as Vice President of Clinical Services, oversees

he Corporate Director of Program Development and Clinical Compliance at Capital

ealth Corporate in Columbus, Ohio.

27. The Corporate Director of Program Development and Clinical Compliance

plans, organizes, develops, and directs all in-service educational programs throughout the I . facilities in accordance with current applicable federal, state, and local standards,

guidelines and regulations.

28. Capital Health has more than 100 employees.

CAPITAL HEALTH'S MANDATORY REPORTING OF FACILITY RESIDENT CARE NEEDS ("RUG SCORES"), FINANCES, AND STAFFING LEVELS

29. Every nursing home receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding-including

lhose at issue in this case-is required to report significant amounts of data to the federal

jgency that oversees operations of nursing homes receiving federal or state funding, the

enters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or "Medicare."

30. The data Defendants submit to Medicare regarding its facility includes data

on its residents (numbers, care needs, and bed days), its finances, and its nurse and

I ursing aide staffing levels as compared to resident care needs.

31. This information is contained in "Minimum Data Set" evaluations of

lSidents' care needs and treatment, and "cost reports" containing information on the

facilities' staffing levels, pay scales, hours worked, payments to companies treated as

cbmmOnlY owned (called "related-party transactions"), and more.

7

32. Medicare uses some of this data submitted by Defendants to produce its

nursing home 5-star rating system, also known as "Nursing Home Compare," which the

Defendants use to market their facilities, and upon which the public may rely in selecting

or evaluating nursing homes.

33. This data is certified correct by the Defendants and/or submitted under

penalty of perjury and/or civil or criminal penalties.

34. Nursing homes provide detailed information regarding the health status,

care and treatment, and services provided to each resident in the facility using a

standardized electronic questionnaire called the Minimum Data Set, or MDS.

35. This evaluation is done for all nursing home residents regardless of whether

their care is being paid for by Medicare.

36. Nursing homes are required to evaluate every resident using the Minimum

Data Set questionnaire shortly after the time of admission, every 90 days thereafter, when

a resident has a significant improvement or decline in health (physical, mental, or

psychosocial), and upon discharge.

37. Based on this Minimum Data Set, each resident's individual care needs

(called "acuity level") are assigned into a group signifying how much nursing or staff care

the resident requires, called a Resource Utilization Group score, or RUG score.

38. Each resident's Resource Utilization Group score is contained in section Z

IOf their Minimum Data Set evaluations, meaning the total care needs of the residents in

any facility at a specific time is available by totaling the residents' Resource Utilization

Group scores from their Minimum Data Set evaluations.

39. Medicare has commissioned and made available to every nursing home

studies and data showing the number of minutes of nursing and nursing aide care a

8

person at a specific RUG level should be expected to require, which Medicare calls I "expected staffing."

40. When these Resource Utilization Group scores are combined for all

residents in a nursing home facility, the nursing home knows exactly how many minutes

f nursing and nursing aide care should be provided, on average, to meet the expected

lare needs of their residents.

41. Despite this information, Defendants intentionally understaff the facilities

o make more money, with the predictable outcome being increased preventable resident

mjuries and deaths from things like falls, dehydration, malnutrition, bedsores (pressure

leers), and infections like urinary tract infections.

SYSTEMIC UNDERSTAFFING COVERED UP BY MISLEADING ADVERTISING

42. To persuade the families of patients to become customers, and other health

I are providers to refer them residents, Defendants make promises to the families of such

potential residents that they will provide a level of care that they know they are incapable

If idi ID provi mg.

43. For example, Defendants' website advertising includes the following:

a. "Capital Health Care Network" provides "quality care each and every day to

those patients and residents we are privileged to serve."

b. Carriage House of Steubenville delivers "exceptional patient care and

service."

c. "Carriage Inn of Steubenville is committed to providing the highest quality

of care to our residents and families."

9

44. In fact, Capital Health systemically understaffs their facilities, including

Carriage Inn of Steubenville.

45. Capital Health does not disclose to families of potential residents that

Carriage Inn of Steubenville is a 2-star "below average" facility for staffing, providingjust

r fraction of the nurse staffing levels their residents need, and below average for other Ohio facilities. .

46. Capital Health does not disclose to families of potential residents that

Carriage Inn of Steubenville is a 2-star "below average" facility for quality of care provided

\0 residents. 47. This systemic understaffing leads to poor outcomes because the nursing

staff is overworked and unable to provide needed care to all residents, such as turning

lnd positioning (leading to bedsores), changing incontinent residents (leading to

Jedsores and infections), toileting residents (leading to increased falls and other issues),

+d assisting residents with eating and drinking (leading to more dehydration,

malnutrition, choking, and other complications).

48. For example:

a. Carriage Inn of Steubenville's percentage of long-stay high-risk residents

with pressure ulcers is 9.6%, almost twice the Ohio average of 5.1%.

b. Carriage Inn of Steubenville's percentage of long-stay residents

experiencing one or more falls with major injury is 5.6%, compared with the

Ohio average of 3.5%.

c. Carriage Inn of Steubenville's percentages are also worse than the Ohio

average for long-stay residents whose ability to move independently

10

worsened, long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has

increased, and long-stay residents who lose too much weight.

d. Carriage Inn of Steubenville also overmedicates residents with

antipsychotic medication, at almost twice the rate of average Ohio nursing

homes.

49. This has also led to citations from the State for endangering residents for

such issues as:

a. Not providing proper services to prevent urinary tract infections.

(10/23/2014, 1/2112016,3/30/2017)

b. Not having a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from

spreading. (3/30/2017 and 7/19/2017)

c. Not providing necessary care and services to maintain the highest well being

of each resident. (7/19/2017)

d. Not making sure each resident's drug regimen is free from unnecessary

drugs, or not making sure each resident's entire druglmedication is

managed and monitored to achieve highest well being. (10123/2014.

112112016)

e. Not conducting initial and periodic assessments of each resident's

functional capacity. (10/23/2014)

f. Not keeping each resident free from physical restraints, unless needed for

medical treatment. (912/2015)

g. Not hiring only people with no legal history of abusing, neglecting or

mistreating residents, or not reporting and investigating any acts or reports

of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of residents. (9/2/2015)

11

h. Not developing policies that prevent mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of

residents or theft of resident property. (9/2/2015)

i. Not making sure that nurse aides show they have the skills and techniques

to be able to care for residents' needs. (8/26/2016)

50. From these and prior inspections, as well as the MDS evaluations and

review of resident care outcomes, Capital Health was on notice of the issues caused by

understaffing yet, nevertheless, continued to systematically understaff the facility.

51. The intent and outcome of their misleading advertising is to cause residents,

their families, and external care providers to believe the nursing facility is much better

staffed than it is, while they drastically limit the budget and overhead needed to run a safe

facility to maximize profits and syphon resources at the expense of patient safety.

52. This systemic understaffing is part of Capital Health's approach to

maximizing profits for its owners, as evidenced by similar poor staffing levels at some of

its other Ohio nursing homes.

SYSTEMIC UNDERSTAFFING HARMED HENRY TAYLOR

53. Defendants failed to ensure, through their operational, budgetary,

consultation and managerial decisions and actions, that Carriage Inn of Steubenville was

sufficiently staffed to meet the individual needs of Henry Taylor.

54. Defendants engaged in a systemic practice to understaff its nursing home

facility to maximize its profits at the expense of its residents' care.

55. This lack of sufficient staff directly resulted in Henry Taylor not receiving

basic and necessary services to prevent, among other things, neglect leading to injuries

and death.

12

DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESSNESS WITH HENRY TAYLOR'S CARE

56. .Defendants received Henry Taylor as a nursing home resident at the

Farriage Inn of Steubenville in December, 2015, and agreed to provide care to him in

exchange for monetary payment.

57. At the time of accepting Henry Taylor, he had no skin breakdowns, called

bedsores or pressure ulcers.

58. Henry Taylor needed assistance with getting medications, staying clean

(bathing and sponge baths),

59. Carriage Inn of Steubenville failed to meet these care needs.

60. Carriage Inn of Steubenville's lack of care included:

a. Failing to respond to call lights for Henry Taylor and other residents in a

timely way;

b. Failing to help Henry Taylor eat at meals;

c. Failing to bathe or clean Henry Taylor's skin, face, and hair;

d. Causing Henry Taylor to suffer multiple falls;

e. Causing Henry Taylor to develop multiple pressure ulcers on Henry Taylor's

skin, including his genitals;

f. Causing Henry Taylor to suffer from urinary tract infections;

g. Causing Henry Taylor to suffer from gangrenous wounds;

h. Causing Henry Taylor to suffer from infected wounds.

61. As the result of this inadequate care, Henry Taylor died on February 26,

2(])17, from sepsis and gangrene.

13

DEFENDANTS' REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH LAWS REQUIRING THEM TO PRODUCE HENRY TAYLOR'S MEDICAL RECORDS TO HIS FAMILY

records.

62. Henry Taylor's family has a legal right to obtain Henry Taylor's medical

6~. Henry Taylor's family-specifically, the administrator of his estate-

requested his medical records.

64. Defendants have not produced Henry Taylor's medical records in the

[ equested format, despite requests from his family and the duly appointed estate

representative, instead demanding illegal or improper fees for copying.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (SURVIVORSHIP / NEGLIGENCE / RECKLESSNESS)

65. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

66. Henry Taylor depended on the Defendants, and their respective nursing and

edical staff, for medical and nursing care, treatment, evaluation, and assistance.

67. The Defendants, including their medical and nursing staff, failed to provide

proper care and treatment to Henry Taylor, which they knew or should have known he

leqUired, resulting in his injury and death.

68. The Defendants' failure to provide proper care and treatment included, but

is not limited to:

a. Choosing to put inadequate prevention and response interventions in place to prevent falls, bedsores, infections, and gangrene;

b. Choosing to provide inadequate resident observation, supervision, and monitoring to prevent falls, bedsores, infections, and gangrene;

c. Choosing to provide too few, and / or underqualified nursing staff members for the resident needs at the facility to protect and provide adequate care to residents like Henry Taylor;

14

d. Choosing to not provide accurate, adequate, or timely information to Henry Taylor's family;

e. Choosing to violate state and federal regulations governing care and staffing levels in nursing home facilities by which residents like Henry Taylor are a member of the class of persons intended to be protected from injuries like those he suffered: and

f. Such other acts or omissions described in this Complaint or discovered in litigation.

69. The Defendants and their medical and nursing staff provided care to Henry

Taylor that fell below the standard of care expected of medical care and nursing home

~I' rganizations, under the same or similar circumstances.

70. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence described above, Henry

TaYlor sustained permanent injury and loss including, but not limited to, conscious pain

and suffering, disability, and significant medical expenses and these physical injuries

laused his untimely and wrongful death.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly, in an

amount more than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), for conscious pain and

uffering, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment, together with costs of suit, attorney's fees

lnd expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief to which the I decedent may be entitled to and/or that the court finds is appropriate and/or equitable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (WRONGFUL DEATH)

71. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

72. Plaintiff brings this Cause of Action pursuant to Ohio's Wrongful Death

tatute for the benefit of Henry Taylor's heirs and next of kin who have suffered loss and

amage due to Henry Taylor's wrongful and untimely death

15

73. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence/recklessness described

above, Henry Taylor sustained physical injuries that caused his untimely and wrongful I death.

74. Plaintiff and Henry Taylor's additional next-of-kin suffered damages as set

forth in the Ohio Wrongful Death statute, including mental anguish and grief, medical

lnd funeral expenses, and loss of decedent's support, services, society and

ompanionship.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly, in an

. mount more than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to compensate the

reCeden!'S next of kin and heirs at law, together with costs of suit, attorney's fees and

expenses, exemplary damages, and any other relief the court finds is appropriate and/or

~qUitable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (NURSING HOME RESIDENT RIGHTS VIOLATION R.C. 3721.13)

75. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

ewritten herein.

76. Defendants, directly or through their employees or agents, violated Henry

Taylor's rights as a resident of the Defendants' facilities, as enumerated in R.C. 3721.13, I rcluding, but not limited to, the right to adequate and appropriate medical treatment

and nursing care.

77. These violations constitute negligence per se and give rise to a statutory

(muse of action.

16

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of R.C. 3721.13,

enry Taylor endured conscious pain and suffering and disability, incurred medical

expenses, suffered his untimely death, and was otherwise harmed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly, in an

mount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with costs of

suit, attorney's fees and expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief

lo which the court finds is appropriate and/or equitable. .

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF R.C. 3701.74(C))

79. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

ewritten herein.

80. Doris Harris is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of Henry

aylor.

81. As the estate representative, she is entitled by law to receive the medical

ecords of Henry Taylor upon request from the facility, in the format of her choice.

82. Plaintiff first requested medical records from Defendants in May 2017 and

1eQUested those records in accordance with the Health Information Technology for

Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. 45 CFR 164.524 (c) (2) (ii).

83. Defendants have refused to comply with Plaintiffs requests for medical

ecords in violation ofR.C. 3701.74 and HITECH.

84. Defendants' delay in providing these medical records has been

nreasonable, unnecessary, and unjustified.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly, and

requests the previously requested medical records.

17

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD)

91. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

92. Defendants concealed facts concerning their staffing levels, pay, and the

amount of care they were actually capable of providing at the facility.

93. Not only did Defendants conceal this information, they publicly and

privately represented that they provide exceptional care to induce the family of Henry I . . aylor and other potential customers to place their loved ones in their care and custody.

94. These inducements were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or

lith such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether they were true or false that

tnowledge may be inferred with the intent of misleading Henry Taylor's family and other

I otential customers into placing their loved ones in the care and custody of Carriage Inn

of Steubenville.

95. Henry Taylor, his family, and family members of other potential customers

easonably relied on Defendants' representations and concealments regarding the degree

of care they provide.

96. The result of these inducements and concealments was that Henry Taylor's

fimny, and the family of numerous other residents, allowed their loved one to be placed

Defendants' facility.

97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, representations,

apd concealments, Henry Taylor suffered conscious pain and suffering and death.

98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' action, representations, and

concealments, Henry Taylor's next-of-kin have experienced harms and losses as a result

18

of his death. including those damages set forth in Ohio's wrongful death statute- R.C. I , 125.02.

WHEREFORE. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants. jointly. in an

amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25.000.00). together with costs of

bUit. attorney's fees and expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief I to which the court finds is appropriate andlor equitable.

A TRIAL BY JURY IS HEREBY DEMANDED.

I sl William B. Eadie WILLIAM B. EADIE (0085627) MICHAEL A. HILL (0088130) EADIE HILL TRIAL LAWYERS 3100 East 45th St .. Suite 218 Cleveland. Ohio 44127 (216) 777-8856 (0) I (216) 216-716-2502 (f) william. eadie@eadiehill.com michael.hill@eadiehill.com https:llwww.eadiehill.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

19