Plaintiffs names are confidential due to Doe #2 having been a minor child while attending the program. Doe #1, the parent, was fraudulently assured that Best Drug Rehabilitation was the only Michigan ' juveniles only' drug rehab program, after being told there were none in Indiana. The claims in this case against Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc (BDR) and Tranquility Detox are for Fraud, Credit Card/Application Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Contract, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. There are 115 statements supporting the above claims, one more disturbing than the next, about the minor child attending Tranquility Detox and Best Drug Rehab, falsehoods told to the parent, and fraudulent actions taken by the defendants in order to make the sale. No one should have to go through what happened, much less a minor child and a caring and vulnerable parent. 2 names mentioned in the complaint are Darwin Dixon, the salesman, and Brian Basil, the interventionist Dixon referred the parent to. Read what they said and did to get the child to arrive. Also, read what happened at Tranquility Detox, then on the long drive from there to the Best Drug Rehab in program in Manistee, MI 2 days later; what was going on there, what the minor was made to deal with before he secretly called home, before BDR director Amber Howe assured the parent that the minor was not telling the truth and they have an 85% success rate. The next day, the minor finally walked away, found a phone, called his family to come get him and waited while they drove 7 hours to rescue him from the traumatic nightmare. This case was settled.
This case demonstrates why one should never take the word of a rehab program representative that your insurance will cover the program claims. Especially the word of a Narconon or unbranded Narconon program representative, such as the one mentioned in the counter-claim against this lawsuit. Here, Plaintiff Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc, an unbranded Narconon program, owned and operated by high level public scientologist Per Wickstrom, filed a collection type lawsuit in Virginia against 3 family members for 'Breach of Contract' and Unjust Enrichment. The defendants filed their response pro se, meaning without professionallegal representation, and included a counter-claim with accusations that we at Narconon Reviews have all come to see so often. Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. (BDR, as we tend to call it ) then attempted to squash the defendants' counterclaim by asserting they lacked jurisdiction in VA. Why? Because the contract they had signed stated that all disputes would be heard in the state of Michigan. We had to chuckle at the defendants' response. You will, too, I'm sure. In the end, Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. came to see they would get nowhere with this claim, and would be subject to an out-of-state-lawsuit that would expose their deceptive trade and program practices, causing a marketing nightmare should it go any further. Both parties agreed to end their cases by mutual dismissal of both lawsuits before the court. The order includes that the claims of both cases are permanently barred from being reheard by any court again. The documents are easy to read, explosive and damaging to BDR. They reflect sales and program practices and problems encountered, as mentioned in numerous Narconon and unbranded program lawsuits we have documented here at Narconon Reviews. The defendants' names, court location and complaint case number were already redacted when we received documents, but we are familiar with the case from the beginning, and want to thank those who assisted these victims address this lawsuit, particularly the diligent consumers in this case, the volunteer legal advisors who came to their aid and the referrers to them from Virginia and elsewhere. Please take a few minutes to read about professional concerns sent to us regarding what occurred in this case, others like it, and how to avoid being sued: Alert: Insurance Coverage & Collections Issues http://narcononreviews.net/narconon/insurance-covera…ollection-issues/
The complainant made multiple allegations to the Michigan Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs about rampant alcohol use by staff and clients, sexual activity between clients and staff, loud music and smoking throughout the facility, a general lack of security and program structure. Additionally, the complainant alleged that money held on account for the client was withheld on discharge. Serenity point denied knowledge of the majority of allegations, pointing to policies and procedures in place, but was cited for failing to return personal funds to the client in a timely manner. The agency was unable to substantiate all claims.
The complainant alleged that her son was not allowed to take his medication for bipolar disorder and that he acquired a strep throat infection left untreated while under the care of Serenity Point. In response, Serenity Point claimed the client was informed that the center was not equipped to treat clients with dual diagnosis on admission and denied knowledge of his illness or symptoms of sore throat. No violations were cited.
A violation of client abuse was substantiated. The surveyor was dismayed that Best Drug Rehab did not come clean about the incident until pressed for video footage of the assault.
The client made multiple allegations in this complaint including not being advised of Recipient's Rights, or a rights program contact, and being required to submit to random drug testing without a chain of command to secure samples. As a result of this inspection, a recommendation was made for A Forever Recovery to provide Recipient's Rights brochures to each client with a rights program contact. Additionally, the program was required to add language to their policies and procedures on securing all drug screens collected.
Violations substantiated: Physical facilities inadequate for the type of service provided, no annual performance evaluations of staff members, no program director on-site, failure to provide adequate job training to staff members, failure to cooperate with state surveyor inspections, failure to comply with recipient rights regulations, failure to inform clients of the risks and possible side effects of discontinuing prescription medications, violating clients rights to be free from work the facility would otherwise employ someone else to do, accepting clients ineligible for admission, e.g., suicidal, inadequately informing clients about the general nature and objectives of the program, e.g., treatment location, or, the rules of the program, lack of appropriate medical evaluation, assessment and care, non-compliance with client activity regulations, and deviation by the program from the plan of operation for which the facility was originally licensed (10 beds) which adversely affects the character, quality and scope of services provided. Additionally, a program evaluation revealed that 45% of clients leave the program against medical advice.
Instead of a nice rehabilitation center, professional health care staff and counselors, and round-the-clock medical staffing, as promised by "Joe" the intake counselor at Narconon Freedom Center, when the Plaintiff arrived, she found dilapidated facilities which were cited by the Calhoun County Health Department for violations, a single nurse, and staff who had, for the most part, been recruited from former patients who had recently completed the Narconon program and were frequently "quarantined off" because of their continued use of alcohol and illegal drugs. You must read the entire complaint to get a full picture of life at Narconon Freedom Center.
The plaintiff in this case alleges breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and consumer fraud. Despite promises to the contrary, Narconon Freedom Center failed to acquire preauthorization for the client's stay or to provide a physical exam. Other complaints include deceptive advertising and false representations about the program's success rates.
Complaint allegations included heat not working properly, a ruptured water pipe and clients forced to clean kitchen and mold. Violation substantiated: Displayed Right of Recipients poster had inaccurate rights advisor's name and phone number.