Motion filed to dismiss charges against Lakeside Academy Nurse

Attorney Anastase Markou, of Levine & Levine Attorneys At Law in Kalamazoo, Michigan, has filed a motion to quash (dismiss) charges filed against Heather McLogan in connection to the April 2020 death of 16-year-old Cornelius Frederick, following an altercation in the cafeteria at the Lakeside Academy.

At the time of the incident, McLogan was the director of nursing for Sequel, which owned Lakeside Academy. McLogan, a former nurse at Lakeside Academy was charged with involuntary manslaughter and violation causing child abuse second degree in a child care organization. Kalamazoo Circuit Court will now review the motion during a hearing scheduled for April 7. If the motion is granted, charges against McLogan will be dismissed and she will not stand trial.

In the written motion, Markou states that during the preliminary examination, in Kalamazoo County’s 8th District Court, the prosecution did not present “even a scintilla” of evidence that McLogan caused the death of Frederick.

“Ultimately, there was clear and unequivocal evidence that the restraint caused the death of Mr. Frederick. Ms. McLogan had no role in the restraint,” Markou stated in the motion. “Therefore, on causation alone, this Honorable Court must quash the information.”

During McLogan’s preliminary hearing in September 2020, Markou argued that in the involuntary manslaughter charge, the prosecution must prove that McLogan had a legal duty to act, and, if so, whether she breached that duty, and whether she caused the death of Frederick. In regard to the charge of violation causing child abuse second degree in a child care organization, Markou argued this charge requires proof that McLogan failed to timely assess Frederick’s condition or seek, obtain or follow through with medical care and that her actions caused Frederick’s death.

“At the preliminary examination, the People did not identify any specific legal duty imposed by Ms. McLogan,” Markou said in the motion. “The District Court claimed that Ms. McLogan had a legal duty, but did not cite any case law or statutory provision that actually imposed such a duty on Ms. McLogan.

Related: