.

Social Services & Human Services Liability

Social Services and Human Services organizations are faced with many challenges as they minister and provide support to some of the most vulnerable segments of our society. Their obligations in responding to community needs can create unique risks leaving them susceptible to liabilities. Understanding the needs of our social services and human services-based clients requires a strong legal team experienced in handling the complex legal issues facing such organizations and devoted to protecting and furthering each organization's mission.   

Marshall Dennehey's Social Services and Human Services Liability Practice members have defended numerous mental health institutions and other social and human services organizations in hundreds of matters. Our attorneys routinely handle claims ranging from alleged abuse and neglect of special needs children, to complex, high-exposure wrongful death litigation.

Among our many clients, we represent special needs and learning-disabled schools, summer camps, mental health institutions, adult day care centers, group homes, community social services agencies, shelters, non-profit organizations, and youth clubs. We count among these clients Elwyn, one of the nation's largest human services organizations serving disabled and disadvantaged individuals. 

This hybrid area of law incorporates multiple liability exposures including General Liability, Amusement Sports & Recreation, School Leaders, Professional Liability and Liquor Liability. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling matters involving:

  • Pennsylvania Youth Services Act
  • Elopement and Wandering Services
  • New York Mental Hygiene Law
  • Mental Health Retardation Act
  • Social Services Protocols and State Ratios
  • Child Abuse/Emotional Abuse
  • Sexual Abuse
  • Child Molestation
  • Sepsis
  • Mental Health Procedures Act
  • Rape Cases
  • Foster Programs
  • In Loco Parentis

Results

Appeal Successful Before the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

We were successful on appeal of a child abuse determination levied against an Aveanna home health nurse. The three-day hearing was litigated before the PA Department of Human Services. As a result of the court’s order, the nurse’s record of child abuse is being expunged. The matter arose out of the alleged attack of a child-patient by a family dog during home nursing care. It was asserted that the nurse failed to properly supervise and protect the child, and failed to properly respond to the incident when it occurred. We established a lack of definitive proof that the nurse negligently left the child unsupervised. We also called into question the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, including whether the dog had a known history of aggression, which led to credibility issues on the part of the family member witnesses. Medical experts also testified on the appellant’s behalf to address possible alternate explanations for the child’s injuries. Ultimately, we established that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, highlighting multiple errors and inconsistencies relating to the investigation as well as the reporting processes. This is a significant outcome in a difficult jurisdiction with many problematic underlying facts (which led to the decision to not call the nurse to testify in her defense). 

Volatile Sexual Assault Case Successfully Moved Out of Philadelphia

We successfully obtained an order to move a sexual assault case to Chester County, Pennsylvania. At first, the venue appeared prima fascia good for Philadelphia until our attorneys more closely investigated and found the one defendant holding the case in the city was never served and could not be found. 

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Addresses Stringent Standard to Defeat a Question-of-Fact Argument

January 1, 2023

The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that it is not a court’s role to weigh evidence to determine issues that may otherwise present as a question of fact.  In Smathers, the plaintiff sued Perry County Children’s Services and its caseworkers, alleging her minor granddaughter died through the neglect of the biological mother as a result of the caseworkers’ reckless or wanton conduct.  The caseworkers filed summary judgment.   Routinely in sovereign immunity cases, courts are asked to determine that undisputed evidence is so one-sided that the party claiming immunity should prevail as a matter of law.  Though summary judgment was granted by the trial and appellate court, the Supreme Court found that the courts impermissibly weighed facts and resolved ambiguities in deposition testimony.  In so holding, the Supreme Court found that “determining whether issues of disputed fact exist is different from making findings of facts”; however, “any inferences regarding the evidence, including the resolution of ambiguities or inconsistencies, must be made in a manner that favors the nonmoving party.” Despite allegations by the caseworkers that they believed the child was safe in her father’s custody after her discharge from the hospital, the Supreme Court found that there was information in the record for the plaintiff to argue that such belief and their corresponding omissions were reckless or wanton, sufficient to deny immunity at summary judgment.  The decision in this case parallels Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Services, 167 Ohio St.3d 390, 2021-Ohio-4096 (Nov. 23, 2021), with a similar holding as to immunity defenses raised in a motion to dismiss.   Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2032 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.