BishopAccountability.org
	Fight Pledged on Clergy Abuse Lawsuits Ruling Court Said Statute of Limitations Applies to Many Actions. Lehigh County Suits, Others in State Might Be Dismissed By Dan Sheehan and Kathleen Parrish The Morning Call [Pennsylvania] March 16, 2005 Lawyers for alleged clergy abuse victims in the Catholic Diocese of Allentown and elsewhere have vowed to pursue lawsuits despite a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling that says the statute of limitations trumps victims' rights to sue church leadership. Observers say plaintiffs might not be able to overcome the Monday ruling that rejected a novel legal strategy to overcome the statute. The ruling sets a legal precedent and might lead to the dismissal of suits in Lehigh County and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Eighteen plaintiffs from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia essentially had argued that the clock on the statute of limitations should be reset to 2002, when the Catholic Church acknowledged child abuse by some members of the clergy and the hierarchy's failure to prevent it. Until that acknowledgment, victims of the long-ago abuse had no way of knowing how complicit church leaders had been, the lawyers argued. So, despite the statute of limitations, they should be able to pursue suits against the leaders today. In the archdiocese case, the abuses allegedly occurred from the late 1950s to the '80s. The victims filed their suits in the first half of 2004. At the time of the alleged abuses, Pennsylvania had a two-year statute of limitations for such wrongdoing. In 2002, the state General Assembly gave child-abuse victims the right to sue until their 30th birthday, but that change wasn't made retroactive. While decrying the "inexcusable conduct" of the archdiocese in its handling of incidents, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, which includes Judge Jack Panella of Northampton County, rejected the argument that the statute should be reset. The victims "knew they were injured … knew their abusers were employees of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and knew the abuses took place on church property," the judges wrote. "Yet the plaintiffs conducted no investigation into any cause of action against their abusers or into any other aspect of the matter." Altoona attorney Richard Serbin, who represents plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Archdiocese and the Allentown Diocese and devised the legal strategy, said the ruling was disappointing, though not surprising. "I've known we were dealing with difficult issues and with the fact that a powerful religious institution is involved," he said. "There are lots of factors to be considered. I don't think any of us thought this would be easy. We're disappointed but not discouraged. We will move forward." The ruling can now be cited as precedent in abuse cases across Pennsylvania that hinge on the two-year time limit for filing suits. That includes 10 cases in Lehigh County, where judges last year said a jury should decide whether the expiration of the statute of limitations should be a factor. Cases had also been allowed to proceed in Allegheny and Westmoreland counties. "It would be my opinion that this decision now binds all the counties to follow the precedent set by the [Superior Court]," said Jay Leeson, attorney for the Allentown Diocese. "We intend to file a copy [of the Superior Court decision] in Lehigh County Court and ask that it reconsider its earlier decision." Serbin said he and fellow counsel Jay Abramowitch have two choices: They can ask the nine judges of the full Superior Court to reconsider the panel's decision, or appeal it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If they choose the latter option, there is no guarantee the cases will advance, said Philip Murren, an attorney in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, whose law firm represents the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference of Bishops. "One thing you should understand about appeals to the Supreme Court is that it's similar to the process followed by the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "When you appeal, it lies within the discretion of the court to decide whether to accept the appeal." Murren and Serbin said they could not speculate on the odds of the Supreme Court's taking the case. Serbin said it is too soon to say how he and Abramowitch will proceed, "but we believe issues raised in these cases are far too important to end the search for justice on behalf of our clients." Tammy Lerner, co-director of the Allentown chapter of Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests, is afraid the decision will discourage victims from coming forward. "That ends up skewing the numbers," she said. "It makes it seem the abuse epidemic isn't as big as it is." Lerner said the court's contention that the victims should have been able to discern the scope of the problem at the time of the abuse is unrealistic. "When you're a child, you don't understand the dynamic of power and control, not to mention this person was a mentor," she said. "This is a person Catholics were taught is next to God. I don't think a child is capable of recognizing there's a conspiracy."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.