Decision dismisses elder abuse charges against Walsh

Dec. 2, 2021 | G. Michael Dobbs
news@thereminder.com

The Holyoke Soldiers Home was the site for a COVID-19 outbreak that killed 76 patients.
Reminder Publishing file photo

SPRINGFIELD/HOLYOKE – Although one part of the legal proceedings against former Holyoke Soldiers Home Superintendent Bennett Walsh and Dr. David Clinton are over, there may be more legal challenges.

A member of the group of families of the victims of the COVID-19 outbreak that killed more than 70 patients at the Home told Reminder Publishing there has been discussion among some to explore a civil suit.

On Nov. 22 Judge Edward J McDonough Jr. of Hampden County Superior Court dismissed the charges against both men. They were each facing five counts of elder abuse and five counts of permitting serious bodily injury to an elder.

Amber Anderson, victim/witness advocate for the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, wrote the families of the victims, “We received notice this afternoon that the Judge allowed the Motions to Dismiss that we argued against on August 24, 2021, meaning all charges against both Dr. David Clinton and Bennett Walsh have been dismissed.”

She organized a Zoom call with the families the next day.

In the judge’s memorandum of decision he wrote, “The indictments against both are limited to a single, solitary act – a decision they made on March 27, 2020 during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. On that day, facing unprecedented staff shortages due to nurse and nurse-assistant callouts, the defendants decided to merge two dementia housing units at the Solders’ Home in Holyoke.

“The Commonwealth alleges that this decision alone caused serious body injury to five specified veterans residing at the Soldiers’ Home by increasing their exposure to COVID-19 and causing them to suffer dehydration and malnutrition. Both defendants move to dismiss the indictments against them on the grounds that (1) there was no reasonably trustworthy evidence submitted to a gran jury that any of the five named veterans ever contracted COVID-19 as a result of the dementia unit merger, or that any of the five suffered dehydration and malnutrition or any other serious bodily injury as a result of that dementia unit merger; (2) there was not reasonably trustworthy evidence that any of the five named veterans suffered any neglect as a result of that decision; (3) neither Mr. Walsh nor Dr. Clinton – whose duties at the Soldiers’ Home are entirely and exclusive administrative – is a ‘caretaker’… [as defined by state law].

“I substantially agree with the arguments advanced in both Mr. Walsh’s and Dr. Clinton’s motions to dismiss. The five named veterans were already exposed to COVID-19 before the dementia unit merger ever occurred. There was insufficient reasonably trustworthy evidence presented to the grand jury that has these two dementia units not been merged, the medical condition of any of these five veterans would have been materially different. Therefore, because the evidence does not support a finding of probable cause to believe Mr. Walsh or Dr. Clinton committed any crime, I must dismiss the indictments against them.”

Reminder Publishing asked former Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett, who had been advising his nephew Bennett Walsh, for comment. He replied, “We are reviewing the judge’s decision and will have no further comment at this time.”

State Sen. John Velis, who has been active in the issue at the Home gave this reaction to the judge’s ruling to Reminder Publishing: “With respect to the decision, I need to read it. [It’s a] separate branch of government, obviously. My job, to the extent that we’re involved with that, I’m going to read that to see if there’s anything we can learn as we’re taking up things like governance and the structure and the oversight of the Home. I know a part of that decision had to do with the definition of a caretaker. We need to really dive into that and see if as we’re taking up this bill – you may not know this, we just had a hearing on this bill, the oversight bill, this past Friday. Obviously, now this bombshell comes along yesterday, on Monday, so my job is to see if there is anything we can take from the legal opinion that we need to incorporate into the legislation.”

Share this: