.
Feedback

Nurses' Suit: Kennedy's Acts 'Intentionally Evil'

A week after Douglas Kennedy was acquitted in criminal trial, Northern Westchester Hospital nurses take him to court.

MOUNT KISCO, NY  -- The Northern Westchester Hospital nurses involved in the alleged scuffle with Douglas Kennedy over his movement of newborn son, Bo through the maternity ward have filed a civil suit, just a week after Kennedy was acquitted in a related criminal trial.

The complaint, obtained by Patch, was filed in state supreme court Tuesday. It accuses Kennedy, a Chappaqua resident and son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, of assault, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the nurses, Anna Lane and Cari Luciano.

The 21-page complaint, submitted by personal injury lawyer Elliot Taub, comes with blistering language against Kennedy, accusing him of ignoring calls not to move Bo, intentionally twisting Lane's arm when she tried to keep a stairwell door on the ward shut as he left with the baby, and of intentionally kicking Luciano at the doorway when she reached for the infant. It also claims that Kennedy caused physical and psychological injuries to the nurses.

The lawsuit claims that Kennedy's actions of twisting Lane's arm and kicking Luciano, “exhibited evidence of a high degree of moral turpitude, a gross violation of standards of moral conduct, vileness, such that the act involved was intentionally evil, and a crime under New York State penal law...”

Kennedy's side has adamantly denied that he intentionally harmed the nurses, calling his contact with Luciano as an instinctive response to protect his baby, and denying that he twisted Lane's arm.

The nurses are suing Kennedy for $200,000 ($100,000 each) in punitive damages, unspecified amounts for the civil allegations, and legal fees.

The civil suit is the latest chapter in a nearly 11-month-old saga. In connection with the disputes, Kennedy was charged with, and acquitted of, one misdemeanor count of child endangerment and two non-criminal violation counts of harassment.

The disputes occured on Jan. 7, two days after Bo was born, and Kennedy was charged in late February. A bench trial took place for five days in late October - including tearful testimonies from Luciano and Lane - and Mount Kisco Village Justice John Donohue rendered his not-guilty verdicts on Nov. 20, arguing that Kennedy's actions were not intentional and siding with the defendent.

Responding to news of the lawsuit, Kennedy and his wife, Molly, blasted the nurses in a statement.

"It is disturbing to us that Northern Westchester Hospital would employ people like this. We are horrified that we ever trusted NWH or these nurses to care for our newborn babies. Cari Luciano and Anna Lane lied on January 7 to cover up their bizarre and inappropriate behavior, including violently trying to grab our son. They were exposed as liars at the trial last month. They are now shamefully continuing their lies in order to extort money from our family. Just as we did at the trial, we will resist this gross display of greed, and not cede any ground to liars and extortionists."

Kennedy's side has been pre-emptively raising and attacking the prospect of a lawsuit for months. Robert Gottlieb, one of his lawyers, has repeatedly accused Luciano and Lane of being out for Kennedy's money. In a recent press conference, Gottlieb described the criminal trial as being to “bolster their chances in a civil lawsuit.”

Taub, the nurses' attorney, could not be reached for comment.

A copy of the nurses' lawsuit is attached as a PDF file.

Gulliver November 27, 2012 at 07:18 pm
The word you're looking for is 'infliction', not 'affliction'.
Blaue Vogel November 27, 2012 at 07:22 pm
These gals should just stop already. Emotional distress? Sounds like a normal day at the hospital grind to me.
Jennifer S. November 27, 2012 at 08:38 pm
Both NICU nurses cared for my daughter who was born 14 weeks premature during her last 3 weeks in the hospital & 2 subsequent overnight hospital stays following surgery. We could not thank them enough for the extraordinary care they provided!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Bedford-Katonah Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 6, 2013 at 10:14 am
I loved all the music - the band belting out 'Sweet Caroline' was great!
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 6, 2013 at 10:12 am
Heather, thanks! I saw you in the crowd! These are awesome. It was a perfect night for it! I'll addRead More a link to your post from mine.
Josephine Ziegler presented the school board with the petition at the May 9 meeting.
John Craig June 3, 2013 at 11:50 am
Regarding paragraph 5 -- the retirement incentive. I haven't read anything to suggest that theRead More retirement incentive and the insurance switch are related or that that KLDTA asked for one to get the other. When I read the initial release from the board, I saw them as 2 different cost savings initiatives. ---The district indicated that each retirement saves a net of $32,500 per year. Early Retirement Incentive Plans (ERIPs) are fairly common stuff among downsizing private organizations. I think it makes sense to use them here to accelerate cost savings. ---The original petition was well written. Now that we have addressed point #3, I think it's time to make further progress on point #2 -- a financially sustainable contract. ---And, experience suggests that if you really want to move forward in a collaborative way, you have to let go of the past. Continuing to harp on past mistakes undermines point #5.
Sara Weale June 3, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Thanks for your comment. I agree that we all need to move forward -- but in my opinion, althoughRead More this side agreement made a long-overdue change in health care carriers (while maintaining a high level of health care benefits/access to teachers, retirees and their dependents), the KLDTA again asked for retirement incentives in return - just as they did for the December 2010 MOA that extended the terms of their contract for two years and avoided going to Triborough. Under the 2010 MOA, KLDTA requested a $10,000 retirement incentive and 21 teachers took the offer (including the current leader of KLDTA) -- resulting in an outlay of $210,000 by the district. Although some savings might have been realized for "early" retirements, it is difficult to calculate the exact amount because the district has no way of knowing when a teacher would have retired without the incentive. If 20 additional teachers take the new retirement incentive which was increased to $17,500 for some reason -- that is a total cost to the district of $350,000. Don't forget that regardless of the incentive, teachers retire with full pension and retiree health care benefits. Yes - the district will realize some savings from the incentives -- but we likely would have realized similar savings without incentives and natural attrition/retirement of our teaching staff. What I think we need to pay attention to as a community is that it seems the only way that KLDTA leadership will agree to changes in the status quo is if they get something in return. The last two agreements with the KLDTA will likely result in approximately $500,000 spent by the district in retirement incentives over a five year period -- money in my opinion, better kept in the district system during these difficult economic times and in the tax-cap environment. In my opinion, finally switching health care carriers did not merit financial rewards for teachers likely retiring in the next three years anyway.
Katonah19 June 6, 2013 at 08:08 am
For more insight, take a look at BOE Member Charles Day's statement on retirement incentives inRead More exchange for KLSDTA's agreement to changes in Health Care here: http://bedford.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/days-statement-on-kl-union-contract-changes