Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Bus driver who molested girls: ‘I’ll never understand the pain I’ve caused’

OLYMPIA, Wash. – The Olympia School District did not do enough to protect a girl from a convicted child molester who drove buses for the district, according to parents of a 7-year-old victim. The family is now filing a claim against the district.

The parents of two other girls have already filed lawsuits as a result of Gary D. Shafer’s actions. Shafer was sentenced to almost 15 years in prison in 2011.

After his arrest, Schafer admitted to sexually assaulting young girls on the bus, sometimes even riding as a passenger on another school bus under the pretense of helping the driver with the students.

Abbigail Gutierrez, one of the mothers who has already filed suit, said she learned later that Shafer would have her daughter sit on his lap, tickling her and telling jokes to groom her. Gutierrez claims his behavior should have been a red flag to his co-workers and supervisors in the school district.

Gutierrez said her daughter is in treatment and still has anxiety about riding the bus and being around adult men outside of her immediate family. Her mother worries about the long-term affects the abuse will have.

In the newest claim against the district, attorney Darrell Cochran writes “According to the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office, Shafer has sexually assaulted more than 20-30 girls who rode buses in the Olympia School District, from 2005 to December 2010, all of whom were either young girls or special needs students.”

Cochran represents two of the three families who have filed suit.

The district said it can’t comment on pending litigation, but in the past stated that Shafer passed all his background checks.

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/olympia/claim-filed-olympia-child-molester-151021155.html

Plaintiffs Miriam Bearse, John McKinney and Darlene Moore sought permission from the court to represent all home owners who have lost property value due to the Third Runway in a single class action lawsuit.  But in a 15-page written opinion issued on April 9, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request and ruled that diminished property value, like that suffered by the plaintiffs, was too specific to each individual home and each homeowner for the lawsuit to be grouped together in a class action.

Tacoma attorney Darrell Cochran, who represents the plaintiffs, said that the court’s ruling will require all homeowners who have claims related to the Third Runway’s operations to come forward and file suit on their own.   “We already have 333 people who were waiting to see how the court would rule,” Cochran said.  “Now that class certification has been denied, we expect the number of people ready to file suit to protect their property rights to grow dramatically.”

If you are a homeowner who has lost property value or suffered other damages because of Seattle Tacoma International Airport’s Third Runway operations, please call us at 1-855-3RUNWAY (1-855-378-6929) to find out more or click here to contact us and learn more about your options regarding the Third Runway.

You can read more about our nearly decade-long fight against the Christian Brothers, including some of the damaging evidence we have gathered over time.  We have also created a separate website about the bankruptcy process, including the deadlines for filing a claim against the Christian Brothers.

A Pierce County sheriff’s deputy and his wife are suing a Gig Harbor pharmacy, claiming it twice gave their son incorrect dosages of medicine that made him very sick.

Darrell Cochran, attorney for Eric and Laura Carlson, filed the lawsuit in Pierce County Superior Court earlier this week. The suit names Olympic Pharmacy and Healthcare Services as the sole defendant.

The Carlsons seek unspecified damages.

Jeff Bond, owner of Olympic Pharmacy, referred calls to his insurance carrier in Iowa. A representative there declined to comment.

The lawsuit contends Olympic Pharmacy is “an imminent public health danger” because it has not instituted procedures to prevent similar problems.

“Plaintiffs hope to help prevent future injuries to their friends and neighbors who rely on this pharmacy and to recover fair and just compensation for their injuries,” the suit states.

The Carlsons contend Olympic Pharmacy in 2009 and 2011 improperly filled their son’s seizure medication, giving him too much of the medication both times.

The first time the pharmacy loaded eight doses of a drug called Lorazepam in a single syringe instead of single doses in eight syringes, the suit states. The boy lapsed into unconsciousness and was hospitalized with hallucinations.

Laura Carlson later called the pharmacy and was assured it would change it procedures to prevent another mishap, according to the lawsuit.

Cochran said in an interview the Carlsons decided to give Olympic Pharmacy a second chance, as they and other relatives had used it for years.

Last June, the boy had another troubling reaction after he took anti-seizure pills dispensed by Olympic Pharmacy, according to the suit. He spent time in the intensive-care unit of a local hospital as a result.

The Carlsons contend the pharmacy mistakenly filled the boy’s prescription with 600 mg pills instead of the 300 mg pills ordered by his doctor.

The couple claims Olympic Pharmacy was negligent in hiring, training and supervising the staff members who dispensed the medications.

The negligence inflicted emotional distress on the Carlson, “who for multiple days had to watch their son suffer in intensive car units, wondering whether he would survive, wondering if he would suffer a lifelong disability,” the suit states.

The couple also alleges Olympic Pharmacy violated the Consumer Protection Act.

“Plaintiffs also seek all damages afforded by statute, including treble damages, fees and costs as afforded by the Consumer Protection Act,” the lawsuit states.

Cochran said in an interview that the boy, now 13, has not suffered any apparent long-term effects, “but it will be a constant fear for both him and his family.”

“Every time there is some unusual change in behavior, the family worries about the overdose being a contributing factor,” he said.

In 2005, D.P., as the boy is known in the lawsuit, and his family sued the Peninsula School District in federal district court.  The suit alleged that D.P.’s special education teacher at Artondale Elementary in Gig Harbor was violating the then-7-year-old’s civil rights and causing him extreme mental suffering by isolating him in a dark, locked 5’ x 6’ room, for indeterminate amounts of time as a form of punishment.  The parents never consented to the teacher’s form of discipline.

“It’s unconscionable to think that a teacher in the 21^st century could do this to a boy with special needs,” said Vertetis.  Vertetis also said that sometimes the boy was so afraid in the closet that he would urinate and defecate on himself, with the teacher then making him clean it up.  “The damage D.P. suffered at the hands of this teacher set his emotional state and educational progress back years,” Vertetis said.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton sided with the school district and dismissed D.P.’s case, because the boy’s family filed suit before first having an administrative hearing with the school district.

D.P. appealed the case’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appellate court agreed with D.P. and reversed Leighton’s decision.  The school district then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but on February 21, the High Court refused.

The practical and lasting effect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is to improve access to justice for disabled students.  The decision will help courts separate which claims must first go through administrative channels from which claims may proceed directly to court.  This has been a highly contentious issue in the courts and has often resulted in dismissal of disabled students’ claims.  With guidance from the Ninth Circuit’s decision, both aggrieved parties and the courts can more easily determine where to first bring a claim.  Knowing where to bring the claim is thought to reduce the number of dismissals of cases with disabled children, and ultimately give them greater access to justice.

Corrections officers responsible for monitoring Dorosky while on parole misclassified the 30-year career-criminal as a low-risk offender despite an order from the Parole Board requiring intensive management and supervision because of Dorosky’s prior sex crimes.  The Parole Board directed the DOC to conduct regular polygraph examinations to make sure he was not having contact with children.  Despite the directive, the DOC never supervised Dorosky and never enforced a single parole condition imposed by the Parole Board.

Left unmonitored, Dorosky ingratiated himself into the victim’s family and eventually moved into her home, where he continuously abused the victim for almost three years.

DSHS’s involvement in the suit stemmed from a report made by school officials to Child Protective Services on the young girl’s behalf suspecting abuse.  CPS learned over the course of its investigation that Dorosky was a convicted sex offender living with the girl’s family and that he was suspected of both physically abusing and sexually exploiting the child.  However, CPS failed to remove the girl from the abusive environment, never made contact with Dorosky’s parole officers, and simply closed the complaint.

In the summer of 1993, the victim’s father contacted local law enforcement about Dorosky after a visit from his daughter in California.  Mason County officials eventually arrested Dorosky, and he was later convicted of child molestation and rape.  Dorosky died in 2004.

About two years ago, the victim began looking for answers after her own daughter turned 10-years old.  She asked a local law firm that specializes in child abuse cases to help her, not knowing what they would discover.  After numerous public records requests, her attorneys realized the State’s agencies did nothing to protect her.  According to one of her attorneys, Jason P. Amala, “We told her we would help her find out how it happened, but we had no idea what we would find.  It wasn’t until the State said it had no more records on him that we realized it had no records because it did nothing to enforce this sex offender’s parole conditions.”   The woman filed suit shortly thereafter, and Dorosky’s parole officer eventually admitted she did nothing to supervise him.

The settlement comes at a time that Attorney General Rob McKenna is touting legislation to immunize the state from liability.  Darrell L. Cochran, a Tacoma attorney who represented the woman with Amala, testified against McKenna’s proposals in Olympia this morning.  “Our client was raped for almost three years because the state didn’t do its job.  The budget is a concern for everyone, but denying justice to people who endure a lifetime of suffering is not the answer.  Our communities and children will not be safe if the agencies charged with protecting us are given immunity for not doing their job.”

News coverage

The Olympian - State worker gets $2.35 million in settlement over child sex abuse
KOMO TV – State to pay $2.35M in abuse case settlement (VIDEO) 
WSOC TV – WA to pay $2.35M in abuse case settlement

RCW 4.16.340

Actions based on childhood sexual abuse.

(1) All claims or causes of action based on intentional conduct brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced within the later of the following periods:

(a) Within three years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition;

(b) Within three years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by said act; or

(c) Within three years of the time the victim discovered that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought:

PROVIDED, That the time limit for commencement of an action under this section is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen years.

(2) The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse or exploitation incidents caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan of sexual abuse or exploitation.

(3) The knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian shall not be imputed to a person under the age of eighteen years.

(4) For purposes of this section, “child” means a person under the age of eighteen years.

(5) As used in this section, “childhood sexual abuse” means any act committed by the defendant against a complainant who was less than eighteen years of age at the time of the act and which act would have been a violation of chapter 9A.44 RCW or RCW 9.68A.040 or prior laws of similar effect at the time the act was committed.

When the Washington legislature adopted the above statute of limitations in 1991, it made the following findings:

Notes:

“The legislature finds that:

(1) Childhood sexual abuse is a pervasive problem that affects the safety and well-being of many of our citizens.

(2) Childhood sexual abuse is a traumatic experience for the victim causing long-lasting damage.

(3) The victim of childhood sexual abuse may repress the memory of the abuse or be unable to connect the abuse to any injury until after the statute of limitations has run.

(4) The victim of childhood sexual abuse may be unable to understand or make the connection between childhood sexual abuse and emotional harm or damage until many years after the abuse occurs.

(5) Even though victims may be aware of injuries related to the childhood sexual abuse, more serious injuries may be discovered many years later.

(6) The legislature enacted RCW 4.16.340 to clarify the application of the discovery rule to childhood sexual abuse cases. At that time the legislature intended to reverse the Washington supreme court decision in Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wn.2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986).

It is still the legislature’s intention that Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wn.2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986) be reversed, as well as the line of cases that state that discovery of any injury whatsoever caused by an act of childhood sexual abuse commences the statute of limitations. The legislature intends that the earlier discovery of less serious injuries should not affect the statute of limitations for injuries that are discovered later.”

If you survived childhood sexual abuse, please contact us so we can explain your options and ensure your rights are protected.