Parents sue Babcock in son’s death

Jerry Bellune
Posted 10/4/18

Matthew Davis Cullen’s parents hoped the Babcock Center would care for their 25-year-old autistic son.

Last year Cullen was found dead of a heroin overdose inside a supervised West Columbia …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get 50% of all subscriptions for a limited time. Subscribe today.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

Parents sue Babcock in son’s death

Posted

Matthew Davis Cullen’s parents hoped the Babcock Center would care for their 25-year-old autistic son.

Last year Cullen was found dead of a heroin overdose inside a supervised West Columbia apartment, his mother Doris Davis said. His cell phone and wallet were missing, according to the Greenville News.

The family is suing Babcock and the SC Department of Disabilities and Special Needs for gross negligence.

Babcock and DDSN have denied the allegations, arguing that Matthew was responsible for his overdose.

“The death of this individual was extremely unfortunate; however, it was not the product of any fault or other wrongdoing by Babcock Center,” Babcock Executive Director Judy Johnson, told the Greenville News.

Cullen died of an overdose after he went to his apartment with an unknown female, Johnson said.

The lawsuit reads that:

• Cullen was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he tested positive for marijuana Jan. 14, 2015.

• The next month, Babcock staff notes stated he had been drinking and was educated on the risks of alcohol and marijuana.

• On March 19, 2015, he signed out of his apartment at 6 p.m. and returned at 9:15 p.m. While out, he met a woman he had contacted by online personal ads.

• That evening, she visited his apartment. Cullen later died in his apartment from a heroin overdose. The suit accuses the unidentified woman of stealing Cullen’s wallet and cell phone.

• Babcock staff found Cullen’s body the next morning.

Babcock states it is protected from punitive and actual damages beyond a certain amount because it is a charitable organization.

DDSN argued it is immune because it is a government agency not responsible for criminal negligence by those not under its control.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here