In follow-up to the August 1, 2011 court ruling on the defense lawyer’s withholding evidence in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse case, the question becomes, what does this mean for the cases that settled without the benefit of this new evidence?
It is clear from the judge’s ruling that the evidence was highly relevant to the victim’s cases. The problem is, several victim’s settled their claims with Saint Francis Hospital before this evidence was turned over. The victim’s claims seem much more obvious now and it remains to be seen if several of the victim’s will try to get their cases re-opened in court because they did not have the benefit of this evidence when they settled their claims of sexual abuse by an employee of Saint Francis Hospital. Oddly here is a post from the website of the defense firm which provided the very late disclosure. http://www.employerslawblog.com/Entry.aspx?eID=344 St. Francis Hospital's own lawyers who provided these bylaws late and who were representing St. Francis at the time of the trials clearly understood their responsibility and the risk to their client St Francis Hospital. Risks that most law students would recognize.
To learn more about sex abuse cases, click here for an article posted on www.stangerlaw.com.