EFILED LUCAS COUNTY

10/6/2025 9:10 AM
COMMON PLEAS COURT
BERNIE QUILTER,CLERK
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS EFILE ID: 191454
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

ESTATE OF SAMUEL FRANK RAY, SR., ) CASE NO.

DECEASED ) CI2025-03702
Through Estate Representative Samuel F. ) JUDGE Cook, Stacy L.
Ray, Jr. )
c/o Michael Hill Trial Law ) COMPLAINT
815 Superior Avenue, Suite 623 )
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 ) WITH JURY DEMAND AND
) AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT
Plaintiff, ) ATTACHED
)
vs. )
)
ARBORS AT SYLVANIA AKA TOLEDO )
OPCO, LLC )
7120 Port Sylvania Drive )
Toledo, OH 43617 )
)
Also Serve c/o Registered Agent: )
)
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 )
Columbus, OH 43215 )
)
and )
)
ARBORS AT OHIO )
375 West Main St. )
West Jefferson, OH 43162 )
)
and )
)
ARK OPCO GROUP, LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
251 Little Falls Dr. )
Wilmington, DE 19808 )
)
and )
)
TOLEDO 7120 PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 )
Columbus, OH 43215 )
)
and )
)
VILLAS TOLEDO 7120 PROPERTY )
HOLDINGS, LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 )
Columbus, OH 43215 )
)
and )
)
PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, )
LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
421 West Main Street, Suite 219 )
Frankfort, KY 40601 )
)
and )
)
PRESTIGE HEALTHCARE AKA )
NORTHPOINT SENIOR SERVICES, LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
421 West Main Street, Suite 219 )
Frankfort, KY 40601 )
)
and )
)
NOBLE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, )
LLC )
c/o Registered Agent: )
Corporation Service Company )
1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 )
Columbus, OH 43215 )

Plaintiff, the Estate of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., Deceased, through Estate

Representative Samuel F. Ray, Jr., for this Complaint against the above-named

Defendant(s), states and avers upon information and belief:

2
 INTRODUCTION

1. This action involves multiple claims (medical negligence, recklessness,

wrongful death, Resident's Rights Law violations, civil conspiracy, and fraud) involving

Arbors at Sylvania AKA Toledo Opco, LLC’s (“Facility’s”) inadequate care of Samuel Frank

Ray, Sr. and the corporate control of the facility leading to such inadequate care that led

to his untimely and wrongful death on January 17, 2025.

2. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. was admitted to St. Ann’s Hospital on August 2,

2024, after being found at home disoriented and unable to stand. He was diagnosed with

a severe urinary tract infection and remained hospitalized for a week. He was

subsequently transferred to Spring Meadows Nursing Home, which determined he

required further medical care and sent him to ProMedica Flower Hospital, where he was

diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia.

3. Following these hospitalizations, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. suffered significant

muscle atrophy but had no skin breakdown or infections at the time of his admission to

Arbors of Sylvania on August 30, 2024.

4. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., was reliant on Arbors of Sylvania’s staff to assist him

with regular turning and repositioning his body in bed, in order to avoid development of

pressure ulcers – also known as bedsores – due to the bony prominences of his body being

exposed to prolonged periods of pressure from laying in one position too long.

5. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., was also dependent upon Arbors of Sylvania’s staff

to assist him with getting to and from the toilet.

6. Even though Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. was not incontinent and knew when he

needed to go to the toilet to relieve himself, Arbors of Sylvania placed him in adult diapers

3
and told Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., that if he needed to go to the toilet, to instead just soil his

depends and the staff would be around to change his briefs.

7. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., would use the call light to request help from Arbors

of Sylvania’s staff getting to the toilet. Often it took anywhere form 20 minutes to an hour

for help to arrive in response to the call light. When help did arrive, Arbors of Sylvania’s

staff would tell Samuel Frank Ray., Sr., that they would not assist him to the toilet and

he’d need to soil his briefs and wait for Arbors of Sylvania’s staff to come back and change

the briefs later.

8. This resulted in Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., being left laying in his own feces and

waste for hours at a time. The prolonged exposure of the skin on his backside to feces

caused skin irritation and breakdown, exacerbating Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s risk of

bedsore development.

9. Arbors at Sylvania created a care plan for Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., which

required staff to monitor Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s skin for deterioration and breakdown

on a daily basis, in order to timely detect bedsores in their early stages and prevent them

from developing and worsening into open wounds.

4
 10. During the month of September, 2024, Arbors of Sylvania’s staff failed to

turn and reposition Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., thirty three shifts, leaving him laying in

one position in bed and thus exposed to prolonged and excessive periods of pressure:

Treatment and Administration Record of Sam Ray, Sr., for his turning and respositiong at Arbors of Sylvania during
September 2024, showing thirty three shifts where he was not turned or repostioned in bed at all. Arbors of Sylvania
records, p. 1087.

Treatment and Administration Record of Sam Ray, Sr., for his skin monitoring at Arbors of Sylvania during September
2024, showing thirty three shifts where his skin was not monitored at all. Arbors of Sylvania records, p. 1087.

11. During this same time, Arbors of Sylvania also failed to check and monitor

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s skin for areas of breakdown or pressure for thirty three shifts,

allowing evolving skin breakdown to go undetected until it was too late and Samuel Frank

Ray, Sr., developed an open bedsore:

12. Five of the seven shifts after September 23, 2024, when Arbors of

Sylvania first noted Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., had an open wound to his coccyx, Arbors of

Sylvania’s nurses falsely documented that he had no skin breakdown or open areas.

13. Within just over three weeks at Arbors of Sylvania, on September 23, 2023,

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. developed an open area on his coccyx which Arbors of Sylvania’s

staff reported to his son and power of attorney, Samuel Frank Ray, Jr., was “a small

5
abrasion” on his right buttock. In truth, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. was developing a

significant open bedsore on his coccyx.

14. As a direct result of Arbors of Sylvania’s flippant adherence to their own

care plan and the standard of care to turn and reposition Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., diligently

and monitor his skin for breakdown, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., developed a large open

bedsore to his coccyx.

15. Arbors of Sylvania’s staff still left Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., laying in his feces

for hours at a time, resulting in exacerbation of the skin breakdown and bedsore, and

exposing the bedsore to feces and harmful bacteria.

6
 16. On October 7, 2024, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., was taken to the hospital for

outpatient treatment of his bedsore on his coccyx. At this point, the bedsore was so large

and tunneled so deeply, that the bones of his lower back and pelvis were exposed and

Photograph of Sam Ray, Sr.’s bedsore taken on October 7, 2024, at the hospital.

visible:

17. As his wound progressed, Arbors of Sylvania’s treatment of Mr. Ray actually

declined, with Arbors of Sylvania’s staff only performing 33.33% of the skin checks and

turning and repositioning in bed of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., for the month of September

7
2024 after his bedsore was detected by the facility and his treatment with a wound care

doctor began.

18. Arbors of Sylvania’s care of the open bedsore, toileting and timely clean-up

of Samuel Frank Ray., Sr., remained unacceptably inconsistent, and Samuel Frank Ray,

Sr.’s bedsore continued to worsen due to prolonged exposure to feces and excessive

Photo of Sam Ray , Sr.’s coccyx bedsore taken at the hospital on October 23, 2024.
pressure:

19. On October 23, 2024, Samuel Frank Ray., Sr., began experiencing signs and

symptoms of sepsis – a systemic response to severe infection of the bedsore – and was

taken emergently to the hospital. There he received antibiotics, and underwent

debridement – or scraping and cutting of dead tissues – of the bedsore.

8
 20. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., remained severely compromised from the open

bedsore, and in spite of nearly three months of intensive wound treatment, succumbed to

the infection and trauma of the open bedsore on January 17, 2025.

21. The Lucas County Coroner accepted review of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s case,

and performed an autopsy. The County Coroner, Dr. Thomas Blomquist, MD, determined

that the cause of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s death was polymicrobial infection of the open

bedsore resulting in sepsis:

22. The circumstances of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s death and his mistreatment

at Arbors of Sylvania are concerningly similar to the circumstances surrounding the death

of Lucy Garcia, and Arbors of Oregon resident who died in July 2024 following

development of a stage 4 bedsore on her coccyx, detailed in Lucas County Common Pleas

Case No. CI2024-04257 before Judge Eric Marks.

9
 23. Similar to Arbors at Sylvania’s treatment of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., Arbors

at Oregon also placed Lucy Garcia in adult diapers even though she was not incontinent

and left her laying in her own waste for hours before cleaning her up.

24. Similar to Arbors at Sylvania’s treatment of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., Arbors

at Oregon did not inform Lucy Garcia’s family of the full extent of the bedsore and referred

to the bedsore as an “abrasion.”

25. This pattern of conduct at two separate Arbors facilities indicates a systemic

practice of depriving residents of their dignity and appropriate nursing care, resulting in

severe bedsores, infection, sepsis, and death. The conduct also points to Arbors’ systemic

practice of downplaying the severity of bedsores to family members, referring to bedsores

misleadingly as “abrasions.”

26. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

27. An Affidavit of Merit is attached.

28. Plaintiff brings this action for compensation for the harms and losses

sustained as the result of the negligence, recklessness, conscious disregard, reckless

disregard, conduct by which—through heedless indifference to the consequences—the

Defendants or their staff disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the health

care provider's conduct is likely to cause, at the time those services or that treatment or

care were rendered, an unreasonable risk of injury, death, or loss to person or property,

or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct, and other wrongful conduct

described herein or discovered during litigation.

DEFENDANTS

29. Arbors at Sylvania AKA Toledo Opco, LLC is an Ohio corporation that holds

itself out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited

10
to, rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or

employees and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

30. Arbors at Ohio is an Ohio corporation that holds itself out to the public as a

provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited to, rehabilitation and

skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or employees and does business

as Arbors at Sylvania.

31. Ark Opco Group, LLC is a Delaware corporation that holds itself out to the

public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited to,

rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or employees

and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

32. Toledo 7120 Property Holdings, LLC is an Ohio corporation that holds itself

out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited to,

rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or employees

and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

33. Villas Toledo 7120 Property Holdings, LLC is an Ohio corporation that holds

itself out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited

to, rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or

employees and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

34. Prestige Administrative Services, LLC is a Kentucky corporation that holds

itself out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited

to, rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or

employees and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

35. Prestige Healthcare AKA Northpoint Senior Services, LLC is a Kentucky

corporation that holds itself out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care,

11
including but not limited to, rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents,

operatives and / or employees and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

36. Noble Healthcare Management, LLC is an Ohio corporation that holds itself

out to the public as a provider of medical and nursing care, including but not limited to,

rehabilitation and skilled nursing care, through its agents, operatives and / or employees

and does business as Arbors at Sylvania.

37. The Defendants employ, manage, and direct the care and service providers

who were responsible for Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s care, treatment, and safety at Arbors at

Sylvania while they were a resident there, and / or are responsible for creating unsafe

conditions at the Facility through their control of the Facility management that directly

led to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s injuries and untimely and wrongful death on January 17,

2025.

38. The Defendants direct and control operations at the Facility and are

therefore directly liable for mismanagement of the Facility without regard to piercing the

corporate veil.

39. The Defendant organization controls the other corporations in a way that is

so complete that the corporations have no separate mind, will, or existence of their own,

is exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person

seeking to disregard the corporate entity; and injury or unjust loss resulted to the plaintiff

from such control and wrong, meaning the Defendants should be held directly liable for

such harms and losses.

40. The Defendants collectively own, manage, control, and/or are responsible

for the care delivered to residents of Arbors at Sylvania directly or through their

domination and control of any putative entity license holder.

12
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY

41. The Defendants employ the care providers who were responsible for

ensuring Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s care and safety.

42. The Defendants manage, control, and/or employ the nursing staff at the

Facility.

43. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. and their family looked to the Defendants for care

based upon their representations.

44. The Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their

employees and agents (respondeat superior and agency liability) and/or independent

contractors (Clark v. Southview agency by estoppel), including visiting physicians and

nurse practitioners contracted with any of the Defendants and / or provided to residents

as default or house care providers.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

45. This Court has Jurisdiction over Defendant(s) because, among other things,

all Defendant(s) do, and all times relevant did, purposefully avail themselves of the laws

of the State of Ohio, and/or committed tortious acts within the State of Ohio.

46. Venue is proper in Lucas County, Ohio under Civil Rule 3(B) because,

among other reasons: (a) one or more Defendants reside, domicile, or carry on their

principal place of business in that county; and (b) part of the claim for relief arose in that

county.

COMMON FACTS

47. Defendants hold themselves out to the public as providers of long-term

nursing home, skilled nursing, and memory care services.

13
 48. Defendants’ for-profit model means their primary goal is to maximize

profit, measured by revenues minus expenses.

49. For nursing homes generally, the largest individual revenue source is

residents (filling beds), and the largest individual expense is the cost of employing nursing

staff to provide care to those residents. This creates a financial incentive to take on more

residents with greater care needs than the nursing staff can properly care for, a violation

of federal nursing home regulations regarding staffing levels.

50. The Defendants manage, control, and / or employ the nursing staff at

Facility.

51. The Defendants exercise actual control over the Facility’s management and

operations to maximize profits, including control over facility-level:

a. Policies and procedures, including regarding resident care;

b. Finances, including obtaining credit and loans, guaranteeing loans

(both at the corporate and individual facility level), maintaining
funds and banking, obtaining, owning, and leasing facility land and
buildings, and capital expenditures.

c. Budgeting, including controlling the amount of funds available for

staffing facilities;

d. Personnel management, including hiring and firing, or having

authority to hire and fire, the supervisory and management
personnel in each facility;

e. Supervision of management, care providers, and staff in each facility,

including compliance with federal and state regulations;

f. Employment, such as setting pay scales, shifts, and time and vacation
policies;

g. Systems for training, monitoring, and supervising staff;

h. Medical record systems and management;

i. Financial control systems, including budgeting and payment

processing;

14
 j. Marketing, including setting the image and expectations residents
and their family should expect at the facility, and even the name of
the facility;

k. Reporting procedures, including reporting to Medicare as to

individual resident care and facility-wide issues.

52. As the result of this control, the Defendants make decisions that affect the

day-to-day care of residents of the Facility, such as the resources available for providing

nursing staff and care to residents like Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., meaning they are

responsible for the foreseeable harm that results from careless decisions while voluntarily

exercising that control.

53. Defendants failed to ensure, through their operational, budgetary,

consultation and managerial decisions and actions, that the facilities were sufficiently

staffed to meet the individual needs of its residents, including Samuel Frank Ray, Sr..

54. Defendants engaged in a systemic practice to understaff the facilities to

maximize profits at the expense of its residents’ care.

15
 55. The Defendants’ systemic understaffing of the Facility resulted in a “2-star”

(“below average”) ranking for Staffing on the Medicare.gov Nursing Home Compare

website and 3-star overall ranking.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Arbors at Sylvania earned a 2-star, or
“below average” rating for Staffing. This data was taken directly from medicare.gov on
September 23, 2025.

56. This lack of sufficient staff directly resulted in Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. not

receiving basic and necessary services to prevent, among other things, neglect leading to

their injuries and death.

16
 57. The Defendants’ understaffing practices are practiced throughout the

facilities they exercise operational and managerial control over, resulting in an average

2.1-star rating for all Defendants’ facilities overall, and a 2.3-star rating for staffing:

58. The Defendants exercise operational and managerial control, and apply this

profits-over-safety model, at the following facilities in the State of Ohio:

a. Arbors at Carroll
3680 Dolson Court NW, Carroll, OH 43112

17
b. Arbors at Delaware
2270 Warrensburg Road, Delaware, OH 43015

c. Arbors at Fairlawn
575 S Cleveland Massillon Road, Fairlawn, OH 44333

d. Arbors at Gallipolis
170 Pinecrest Drive, Gallipolis, OH 45631

e. Arbors at Marietta
400 Seventh Street, Marietta, OH 45750

f. Arbors at Mifflin
1600 Crider Rd, Mansfield, OH 44903

g. Arbors at Milford
5900 Meadowcreek Drive, Milford, OH 45150

h. Arbors at Minerva
400 Carolyn Court, Minerva, OH 44657

i. Arbors at Oregon
904 Isaac Streets Drive, Oregon, OH 43616

j. Arbors at Pomeroy
36759 Rocksprings Road, Pomeroy, OH 45769

k. Arbors at Springfield
1600 Saint Paris Pike, Springfield, OH 45504

l. Arbors at Stow
2910 L'ermitage Pl, Stow, OH 44224

m. Arbors at Streetsboro
1645 Maplewood Dr, Streetsboro, OH 44241

n. Arbors at Woodsfield
37930 Airport Road, Woodsfield, OH 43793

o. Arbors West
375 West Main Street, West Jefferson, OH 43162

18
 Reporting Data – Nursing Home

59. The Defendants are required to report significant amounts of data to the

federal agency that oversees operations of nursing homes receiving federal or state

funding, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or “Medicare.”

60. The data the Defendants submit to Medicare regarding its facility includes

data on its residents (numbers, care needs, and bed days), its finances, and its nurse and

nursing aide staffing levels as compared to resident care needs.

61. This data is certified correct by the Defendants and / or submitted under

penalty of perjury and / or civil or criminal penalties.

62. Medicare uses some of this data submitted by Defendants to produce its

nursing home 5-star rating system, also known as “Nursing Home Compare.”

Nursing Home Resident Care Needs and Staffing Levels

(MDS and PDPM Scores)

63. Every nursing home receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding—the clear

majority of nursing homes, including Arbors at Sylvania and others operated and / or

controlled by Defendants—is required to provide detailed information regarding the

health status, care and treatment, and services provided to each resident in the facility

using a questionnaire called the Minimum Data Set, or MDS. This evaluation is done for

all nursing home residents regardless of whether their care is being paid for by Medicare.

64. Nursing homes like Arbors at Sylvania are required to evaluate every

resident using the Minimum Data Set questionnaire shortly after the time of admission,

every 90 days thereafter, when a resident has a significant improvement or decline in

health (physical, mental, or psychosocial), and upon discharge.

19
 65. Based on this Minimum Data Set, each resident’s individual care needs

(called “acuity level”) are assigned into a group signifying how much nursing or staff care

the resident requires, called a Patient-Driven Payment Model score, or PDPM score. The

PDPM score is calculated for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language

pathology, non-therapy ancillary services, and nursing services.

66. Each resident’s PDPM score for nursing services is contained in the

patient’s Minimum Data Set evaluations, meaning the total nursing care needs of the

residents in any facility at a specific time is available by totaling the residents’ PDPM

scores from various sections of the Minimum Data Set evaluations corresponding to

increased needs for nursing care.

67. When these PDPM scores are combined for all residents in a nursing home

facility, the nursing home knows exactly how many minutes of nursing and nursing aide

care should be provided, on average, to meet the expected care needs of their residents.

Misleading Advertising

68. In an effort to persuade the families of patients to become customers,

Defendants make promises to the families of such potential residents that they will

provide a level of care that they know they are incapable of providing.

69. The intent and outcome of this misleading practice is to cause residents,

their families, and external care providers to believe the nursing facility is much better

staffed to provide the promised care than what is actually the practice of the Defendants

with regard to staffing the Facility.

70. The intent and outcome of this misleading practice is to drastically limit the

budget and overhead needed to run a safe facility in order to maximize profits and syphon

resources at the expense of patient safety.

20
 Systemic Understaffing and Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s Care

71. Defendants failed to ensure, through their operational, budgetary,

consultation and managerial decisions and actions, that Arbors at Sylvania was

sufficiently staffed, and the staff appropriately trained and informed, to meet the

individual needs of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. during the period he was a resident at the

facility.

72. Defendants engaged in a systemic practice to understaff Arbors at Sylvania

to maximize profits at the expense of its residents’ care.

73. This lack of sufficient staff directly resulted in Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. not

receiving basic and necessary services, assessments, and interventions to prevent, among

other things, neglect leading to their injuries at Arbors at Sylvania during the period they

were a resident at the Facility.

Defendants’ Negligence and Recklessness with Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.

74. Defendants accepted Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. as a nursing home resident with

the goal of returning home.

75. Defendants agreed to accept Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. into their facility and

provide care to them in exchange for monetary payment.

76. The Facility knew Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. was at risk for developing pressure

wounds and/or ulcers due to impaired skin integrity hen it accepted them into their care.

77. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. was admitted to St. Ann’s Hospital on August 2,

2023, after being found at home disoriented and unable to stand. He was diagnosed with

a severe urinary tract infection and remained hospitalized for a week. He was

subsequently transferred to Spring Meadows Nursing Home, which determined he

required further medical care and sent him to ProMedica Flower Hospital, where he was

21
diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia. Following these hospitalizations, Samuel Frank

Ray, Sr. suffered significant muscle atrophy but had no skin breakdown or infections at

the time of his admission to Arbors of Sylvania.

78. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. ,was admitted to Arbors on August 30, 2024.

79. Within three weeks at Arbors, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., developed an open

bedsore on his coccyx, and over the following three weeks the wound progressed into a

severe infected Stage 4 sacral decubitus ulcer, exposing bone and muscle, which required

emergency surgery at ProMedica Flower Hospital. Hospital staff advised he could not

safely return to Arbors. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. later died in spite of intensive treatment

for his open and infected bedsore. The Lucas County Coroner identified the cause of death

listed as polymicrobial sepsis due to the sacral decubitus ulcer.

80. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. endured mental and physical pain suffering and

death as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide adequate care due

to understaffing the facility.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE / RECKLESSNESS)

81. Plaintiff(s) incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

82. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. depended on the Defendants, and their respective

nursing and medical staff, for medical and nursing care, treatment, evaluation, and

assistance.

83. The Defendants had a duty to provide proper care and treatment to Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. and to avoid causing injury to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr..

22
 84. The Defendants, including their medical and nursing staff, failed to provide

proper care and treatment to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., which they knew or should have

known they required, and their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the

injuries that Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. suffered.

85. The Defendants’ failure to provide proper care and treatment included, but

is not limited to:

a. Choosing to put inadequate prevention and response interventions in place

to prevent injuries;

b. Choosing to provide inadequate resident observation, supervision, and

monitoring;

c. Choosing to provide improper training to staff members regarding resident

monitoring, assessment, response, and treatment;

d. Choosing to provide too few, and / or underqualified nursing staff members

for resident needs at each facility to protect and provide adequate care to
residents like Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.;

e. Choosing to not provide accurate, adequate, or timely information to

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s family;

f. Choosing to provide inadequate supervision to prevent accidents and falls;

g. Choosing to violate orders relating to care of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.;

Choosing to violate state and federal regulations governing care and staffing
levels in nursing home facilities by which residents like Samuel Frank Ray,
Sr. are a member of the class of persons intended to be protected from
injuries like those they suffered;

h. Failing to ensure the rights and safety of its residents, including Samuel
Frank Ray, Sr., as required by Ohio and federal regulations;

i. Choosing not to provide appropriate care to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. while
they were a resident of the Facility; and

j. Such other acts or omissions described in this Complaint or discovered in

litigation.

86. These actions constituted a conscious disregard for Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s

rights and safety with a great probability of causing substantial harm from this

23
misconduct, by which—through heedless indifference to the consequences—the

Defendants or their staff disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the health

care provider's conduct was likely to cause, at the time those services or that treatment or

care were rendered, constituting an unreasonable risk of injury, death, or loss to person

or property, or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct. The Defendants

were aware of the great probability of the harm that could result from their willful,

wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

87. The Defendants’ disregard for the rights and safety of residents like Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. created circumstances under which it became substantially certain that

serious injuries would result, entitling Plaintiff to awards for compensatory and punitive

damages.

88. The Defendants are directly liable for their own willful, wanton, and/or

reckless misconduct.

89. The Defendants are also vicariously liable for their employees’ and agents’

willful, wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

90. The Defendants and their medical and nursing staff provided care to Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. that fell below the standard of care expected of medical care and nursing

home organizations, under the same or similar circumstances.

91. The departures from the standard of care are evidenced by violations of

sections of Federal Regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 483 et seq., and Ohio Administrative Code

sections, OAC 3701-17 et seq., and the Ohio Resident’s Rights Law, R.C. section 3721.13.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and/or willful, wanton

and/or reckless actions of the Defendants described above, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.

24
sustained permanent injury and loss including, but not limited to, conscious pain and

suffering, disability, and death.

93. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly,

in an amount more than Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), for conscious pain

and suffering, loss of enjoyment, together with costs of suit, attorney’s fees and expenses,

punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief to which the Plaintiff may be

entitled to and/or that the court finds is appropriate and/or equitable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(NURSING HOME RESIDENT RIGHTS VIOLATION R.C. 3721.13)

94. Plaintiff(s) incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

95. Defendants, directly or through their employees or agents, violated Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr.’s rights as a resident of the Defendants’ facilities, as enumerated in Ohio

Revised Code section 3721.13, including, but not limited to:

a. The right to a safe and clean living environment;

b. The right to be free from physical, verbal, mental, and emotional abuse and
to be treated at all times with courtesy, respect, and full recognition of
dignity and individuality;

c. The right to adequate and appropriate medical treatment and nursing care
and to other ancillary services that comprise necessary and appropriate
care;

d. The right to have clothes and bed sheets changed as the need arises, to
ensure the resident's comfort or sanitation;

e. The right to participate in decisions that affect the resident’s life;

f. The right to have any significant change in the resident’s health status
reported to the resident’s sponsor.

96. These violations are evidence of negligence and conscious disregard of

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s rights and safety, and give rise to a statutory cause of action.

25
 97. These violations are evidence of negligence and conscious disregard of

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s rights and safety, and give rise to a statutory cause of action.

98. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. endured conscious pain, suffering, and disability,

and other harms and losses as the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations

of R.C. 3721.13.

99. These actions constituted a conscious disregard for Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s

rights and safety with a great probability of causing substantial harm from this

misconduct, by which—through heedless indifference to the consequences—the

Defendants or their staff disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the health

care provider's conduct was likely to cause, at the time those services or that treatment or

care were rendered, constituting an unreasonable risk of injury, death, or loss to person

or property, or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct.

100. The Defendants were aware of the great probability of the harm that could

result from their willful, wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

101. The Defendants’ disregard for the rights and safety of residents like Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. created circumstances under which it became substantially certain that

serious injuries would result.

102. The Defendants are directly liable for their own willful, wanton, and/or

reckless misconduct.

103. The Defendants are also vicariously liable for their employees’ and agents’

willful, wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

104. The Defendants and their medical and nursing staff provided care to Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. that fell below the standard of care expected of medical care and nursing

home organizations, under the same or similar circumstances.

26
 105. The departures from the standard of care are evidenced by violations of

sections of Federal Regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 483 et seq., and Ohio Administrative Code

sections, OAC 3701-17 et seq., and the Ohio Resident’s Rights Law, R.C. section 3721.13.

106. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence / recklessness described

above, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. sustained injuries that caused their untimely and wrongful

death.

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of R.C. 3721.13,

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. conscious pain, suffering, and disability, and other harms and

losses including death.

108. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly,

in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, together with costs of suit, attorney’s fees and

expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief to which the court finds

is appropriate and / or equitable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(WRONGFUL DEATH)

109. Plaintiff(s) incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

110. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. depended on the Defendants, and their respective

nursing and medical staff, for medical and nursing care, treatment, evaluation, and

assistance.

111. The Defendants had a duty to provide proper care and treatment to Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. and to avoid causing injury to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.

112. The Defendants, including their medical and nursing staff, failed to provide

proper care and treatment to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr., which they knew or should have

27
known they required, and their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the

injuries that Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. suffered.

113. The Defendants’ failure to provide proper care and treatment included, but

is not limited to:

a. Choosing to put inadequate prevention and response interventions in place

to prevent injuries;

b. Choosing to provide inadequate resident observation, supervision, and

monitoring;

c. Choosing to provide improper training to staff members regarding resident

monitoring, assessment, response, and treatment;

d. Choosing to provide too few, and / or underqualified nursing staff members

for resident needs at each facility to protect and provide adequate care to
residents like Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.; Choosing to not provide accurate,
adequate, or timely information to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s family;

e. Choosing to provide inadequate supervision to prevent accidents and falls;

f. Choosing to violate orders relating to care of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.;

Choosing to violate state and federal regulations governing care and staffing
levels in nursing home facilities by which residents like Samuel Frank Ray,
Sr. are a member of the class of persons intended to be protected from
injuries like those they suffered;

g. Failing to ensure the rights and safety of its residents, including Samuel
Frank Ray, Sr., as required by Ohio and federal regulations;

h. Choosing not to provide appropriate care to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. while
they were a resident of the Facility; and

i. Such other acts or omissions described in this Complaint or discovered in

litigation.

114. Defendants, directly or through their employees or agents, violated Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr.’s rights as a resident of the Defendants’ facilities, as enumerated in Ohio

Revised Code section 3721.13, including, but not limited to:

a. The right to a safe and clean living environment;

28
 b. The right to be free from physical, verbal, mental, and emotional abuse and
to be treated at all times with courtesy, respect, and full recognition of
dignity and individuality;

c. The right to adequate and appropriate medical treatment and nursing care
and to other ancillary services that comprise necessary and appropriate
care;

d. The right to have clothes and bed sheets changed as the need arises, to
ensure the resident's comfort or sanitation;

e. The right to participate in decisions that affect the resident’s life;

f. The right to have any significant change in the resident’s health status
reported to the resident’s sponsor.

115. These violations are evidence of negligence and conscious disregard of

Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s rights and safety, and give rise to a statutory cause of action.

116. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. endured conscious pain, suffering, and disability,

and other harms and losses as the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations

of R.C. 3721.13.

117. These actions constituted a conscious disregard for Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s

rights and safety with a great probability of causing substantial harm from this

misconduct, by which—through heedless indifference to the consequences—the

Defendants or their staff disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the health

care provider's conduct was likely to cause, at the time those services or that treatment or

care were rendered, constituting an unreasonable risk of injury, death, or loss to person

or property, or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct.

118. The Defendants were aware of the great probability of the harm that could

result from their willful, wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

29
 119. The Defendants’ disregard for the rights and safety of residents like Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. created circumstances under which it became substantially certain that

serious injuries would result.

120. The Defendants are directly liable for their own willful, wanton, and/or

reckless misconduct.

121. The Defendants are also vicariously liable for their employees’ and agents’

willful, wanton, and/or reckless misconduct.

122. The Defendants and their medical and nursing staff provided care to Samuel

Frank Ray, Sr. that fell below the standard of care expected of medical care and nursing

home organizations, under the same or similar circumstances.

123. The departures from the standard of care are evidenced by violations of

sections of Federal Regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 483 et seq., and Ohio Administrative Code

sections, OAC 3701-17 et seq., and the Ohio Resident’s Rights Law, R.C. section 3721.13.

124. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence / recklessness described

above, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. sustained injuries that caused their untimely and wrongful

death.

125. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s next-of-kin suffered damages as set forth in the

Ohio Wrongful Death statute, R.C. 2125.01 et seq., including mental anguish and grief

and loss of Decedent’s society and companionship.

126. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, in an

amount more than $25,000.00 to compensate the decedent’s next of kin and heirs at law,

together with costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and any other relief the court

finds is appropriate and / or equitable.

30
 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(CIVIL CONSPIRACY)

127. Plaintiff(s) incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

128. Defendants had an express agreement, mutual understanding, or tacit

agreement to, and/or their agents maliciously combined efforts to:

a. defraud residents and their families by delivering wholly inadequate care,

contrary to their promises;

b. systemically understaff their facilities in violation of federal regulations,

and for the purposes of their own profit, at the expense of resident health
and safety;

c. under-capitalize the facilities and syphon money to themselves and related

entities for the purposes of their own profit at the expense of resident health
and safety;

d. inflate resident RUG levels to obtain excessive and unjustified payments

from Medicare and Medicaid while not providing the care paid for with
these taxpayer dollars;

e. not provide the level of care, by understaffing the facility, paid for by
taxpayer dollars;

f. misrepresenting to Medicare the staffing level of the facility to increase their

rating; and

g. as otherwise may be described in the Complaint or learned through

discovery.

129. This understanding constitutes a malicious combination to injure residents

of the Facility, including Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.

130. In pursuance of this common plan or design to commit tortious acts, the

Defendants actively took part in it, or furthered it by cooperation or request, or lent aid

or encouragement to the wrongdoers, or ratified and adopted the wrongdoers’ acts done

for their benefit.

131. The conspiracy caused injury to Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.

31
 132. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly,

in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, together with costs of suit, attorney’s fees and

expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any other relief to which the court finds

is appropriate and / or equitable.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FRAUD)

133. Plaintiff(s) incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

rewritten herein.

134. Defendants concealed facts concerning their staffing levels, pay, and the

amount of care they were actually capable of providing at Arbors at Sylvania.

135. Not only did Defendants conceal this information, they publicly and

privately represented that they provide exceptional services in an effort to induce the

family of Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. and other potential customers to place their loved ones

in their care and custody.

136. These inducements were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or

with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether they were true or false that

knowledge may be inferred with the intent of misleading Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s family

and other potential customers into placing their loved ones in the care and custody of

Defendants.

137. Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s family and the family members of other potential

customers reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and concealments regarding

the degree of care they provide.

32
 138. The result of these inducements and concealments was that Samuel Frank

Ray, Sr.’s family, and the family of numerous other residents, allowed their loved one to

be placed in Defendants’ facility.

139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, representations,

and concealments, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr. suffered conscious pain and suffering and

death.

140. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ action, representations, and

concealments, Samuel Frank Ray, Sr.’s next-of-kin have experienced harms and losses as

a result of their death, including those damages set forth in Ohio’s wrongful death statute,

Ohio Revised Code section 2125.02 et seq.

141. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly,

in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with

costs of suit, attorney’s fees and expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, and any

other relief to which the court finds is appropriate and/or equitable.

A TRIAL BY JURY IS HEREBY DEMANDED

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Matthew A. Mooney

MATTHEW A. MOONEY (0088130)
C. JOSEPH McCOY (0092669)
MICHAEL HILL TRIAL LAW
815 Superior Ave., Suite 623
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(800) 659-2712 (o) | (216) 304-6630 (f)
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.protectseniors.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

33
 STATE OF OHIO ) AEFIDAVIT OF MERIT
)
CUYAHOGA COUNTY )
Affiant KAPIL GULATI, MD, having been first duly sworn, states:

1: | am an adult, have no known disability preventing my truthful testimony,

and have personal knowledge of the matters contained within this affidavit.

2. | am a full-time practicing physician in the field of Internal Medicine, licensed

in the state of Ohio, board certified in Internal Medicine, spending more than 50% of my
professional time providing direct patient care.

35 Through my specialized knowledge, skill, training, experience, and

education, | am familiar with the standard of care applicable to the medical and nursing
care and treatment that was provided to Sam Ray, Sr. while a resident of Arbors at
Sylvania a.k.a. Toledo Opco, LLC, Ark Opco Group, LLC, Noble Healthcare Management,
LLC, Prestige Administrative Services, LLC, Prestige Healthcare, a.k.a. Northpoint Senior
Services, LLC, Arbors at Ohio, Toledo 7120 Property Holdings, LLC, Villas Toledo 7120
Property Holdings, LLC, B&Y Healthcare S Corp, and Cody Healthcare S Corp.

4. | have reviewed all medical records reasonably available to Estate of Sam

Ray, Sr., Deceased concerning the allegations contained in the Complaint.

5. To a reasonable degree of medical probability, the Defendants, Arbors at

Sylvania a.k.a. Toledo Opco, LLC, Ark Opco Group, LLC, Noble Healthcare Management,
LLC, Prestige Administrative Services, LLC, Prestige Healthcare, a.k.a. Northpoint Senior
Services, LLC, Arbors at Ohio, Toledo 7120 Property Holdings, LLC, Villas Toledo 7120
Property Holdings, LLC, B&Y Healthcare S Corp, and Cody Healthcare S Corp, breached
the standard of care and the breach caused Sam Ray, Sr.’s injuries and death.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

Lexy) Gu
KAPIL GULATIWMD / O
——)

SWORN TO BEFORE ME and subscribed in my presence this [L day of

2025.

NOTARYPUBLIC —™~—_/

Dee Perper RLSIY7.2