A lawsuit has been filed against Clearbrook, a group home operator, following the death of Emily Kasanga, a 33-year-old resident who died after choking at a facility in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. The family alleges that staff negligently left Kasanga unattended while eating despite her documented swallowing disorder and her individualized care plan that required supervision during meals. The wrongful death lawsuit, filed in early July 2026, names Clearbrook, a facility employee, and the State of Illinois for their role in what the family characterizes as a preventable tragedy resulting from inadequate care and failure to follow established safety protocols.
The case centers on a critical breach: Kasanga had a diagnosed swallowing disorder and was documented as having a high risk of choking, yet she was left alone while eating. The failure to supervise and the subsequent failure to notify her family of the medical emergency until after emergency vehicles arrived at the facility form the foundation of the negligence claims. Her brother, then 19, discovered something was wrong only when he arrived to pick her up and found emergency responders at the group home.
Table of Contents
- What Happened at the Clearbrook Group Home in Rolling Meadows
- The Allegations of Negligence and Failure to Follow Care Plans
- Prior Complaints About Kasanga’s Care and Neglect
- Notification Failure and the Right to Know
- Swallowing Disorders and the Duty of Care in Residential Settings
- State Oversight of Group Homes and Regulatory Failure
- Implications for Other Group Home Residents and Family Advocacy
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Happened at the Clearbrook Group Home in Rolling Meadows
Emily Kasanga died as a result of choking while alone at the Clearbrook-operated group home in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. Her death was not an unavoidable accident but rather, according to the lawsuit, a preventable outcome of staff negligence. Kasanga’s medical records documented her swallowing disorder and flagged her as high-risk for choking. Despite this documented risk and the requirements of her individualized care plan, facility staff did not maintain visual supervision while she was eating—a fundamental safety measure for someone with her condition.
Group homes are required by law and regulation to follow individualized care plans tailored to each resident’s specific needs and medical conditions. These plans typically include detailed instructions about supervision requirements, medication administration, dietary restrictions, and emergency procedures. When a resident has a swallowing disorder, supervision during meals is not a discretionary service; it is a core protective measure. The lawsuit alleges that Clearbrook failed to implement this basic safeguard, leaving Kasanga alone during a moment when her condition made her most vulnerable.
The Allegations of Negligence and Failure to Follow Care Plans
The lawsuit characterizes the death as resulting from negligence—the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable operator would provide. The core allegation is straightforward: Clearbrook was aware of Kasanga’s swallowing disorder, knew she required supervision while eating, and failed to provide that supervision. This is not a case of unclear medical information or ambiguous care instructions; the facility’s own documentation reflected her condition and the required precautions.
A key limitation in group home oversight is that while state agencies have authority to inspect facilities and enforce regulations, investigations often occur after incidents rather than preventing them. The lawsuit names the State of Illinois alongside Clearbrook, alleging that state oversight failed to ensure the facility was following its own care protocols. This reflects a broader problem in the residential care system: reactive rather than proactive enforcement. Many incidents are discovered only after they occur, and by then, the harm is irreversible.
Prior Complaints About Kasanga’s Care and Neglect
Before her death, Kasanga’s family had repeatedly raised concerns about her care at the Clearbrook facility. These concerns ranged across multiple dimensions of her well-being: issues with hygiene, missing clothing, inadequate emotional support, and reports that other residents were bullying her. The family’s pattern of complaints suggests that Kasanga was not receiving the level of individualized attention and protection her condition required. Each of these issues—poor hygiene, missing personal items, emotional neglect, and victimization by peers—points to a broader breakdown in daily care and supervision.
The warning signs were documented and known. A family that escalates concerns repeatedly is often signaling that something is systemically wrong. In Kasanga’s case, the family’s advocacy for better care was not heeded before the fatal choking incident occurred. This is a common tragedy in group home cases: families see declining care quality or obvious problems, voice their concerns, but nothing changes. The system does not respond with investigation or corrective action until a catastrophic event forces intervention.
Notification Failure and the Right to Know
One of the most troubling allegations involves how Clearbrook handled the emergency after Kasanga began choking. The family was not notified by the facility when the medical emergency occurred. Her 19-year-old brother discovered what had happened only when he arrived at the facility to pick her up and saw emergency vehicles outside. This is not a minor procedural failure; it is a violation of basic family communication standards that most facilities would consider mandatory.
Facilities have both a legal and ethical obligation to notify family members immediately when a resident experiences a medical emergency. This serves multiple purposes: it allows the family to make informed decisions about care, to be present during critical moments, and to obtain answers while events are still fresh. The failure to notify Kasanga’s family suggests that the facility may have been focused on liability management rather than on the family’s legitimate need to know. A comparison can be drawn with hospital emergency departments, where family notification of serious incidents is standard protocol. Group homes should operate under the same standard, yet many do not.
Swallowing Disorders and the Duty of Care in Residential Settings
A swallowing disorder, or dysphagia, is a documented medical condition that requires specific precautions. Individuals with this condition are at significant risk of aspiration—food or liquid entering the airways—which can lead to choking, aspiration pneumonia, or death. The fact that Kasanga was diagnosed with this condition meant that every meal presented a potential risk event. This is not theoretical; it is a concrete medical reality that must inform every decision about her supervision and care. The limitation here is understanding that swallowing disorders exist on a spectrum.
Some individuals with mild dysphagia might be able to self-monitor and adjust their eating speed. Others, like those with severe dysphagia or neurological conditions affecting swallowing, cannot be left unsupervised. Kasanga’s documentation marked her as high-risk, which typically means she fell into the latter category. No reasonable group home operator would leave such an individual unattended during meals. The fact that this occurred suggests either a complete failure of staff training, a breakdown in protocol adherence, or both.
State Oversight of Group Homes and Regulatory Failure
Group homes are regulated by state agencies that are supposed to conduct inspections, review care plans, investigate complaints, and enforce compliance with regulations. In this case, the State of Illinois is named in the lawsuit because the regulatory system did not prevent Clearbrook from operating in a manner inconsistent with Kasanga’s documented care needs. State oversight of group homes is often underfunded and understaffed, with inspectors covering large numbers of facilities and responding primarily to serious incidents rather than conducting regular, unannounced inspections focused on preventive compliance.
The state’s role is particularly important when vulnerable populations like individuals with developmental disabilities are involved. These residents cannot file complaints themselves or easily leave a facility that is not providing adequate care. Their families must advocate for them, and the state is supposed to serve as a backstop—ensuring that facilities meet minimum standards even when families do not have the resources or knowledge to enforce those standards themselves. The lawsuit’s inclusion of the state as a defendant reflects a judgment that the oversight system failed.
Implications for Other Group Home Residents and Family Advocacy
This case has clear implications for families with relatives in group homes. It demonstrates the importance of maintaining detailed records of all communications with facility staff, photographing or documenting any concerns about care, and following up verbal complaints with written documentation. When a family raises concerns repeatedly and sees no improvement, it may be necessary to escalate to state oversight agencies, the facility’s licensing authority, or legal counsel. Waiting for a catastrophic incident is too late.
The lawsuit also serves as a reminder to group home operators and staff that failing to follow individualized care plans is not a minor administrative issue—it can have fatal consequences. Kasanga’s death was preventable. She did not die because of her swallowing disorder itself; she died because the facility that was responsible for her safety did not implement the basic supervision protocol that her condition required. For other residents and families navigating the group home system, this case underscores that ongoing vigilance, documentation, and willingness to escalate concerns through every available channel are essential protective measures.
- —
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a swallowing disorder and why does it require special care in group homes?
A swallowing disorder (dysphagia) makes it difficult or unsafe for a person to swallow food or liquid. Individuals with this condition are at high risk of choking or aspiration (food entering the lungs). Group homes must provide direct supervision during meals for residents with documented swallowing disorders as part of their individualized care plan. Failure to do so creates an immediate and serious safety hazard.
Can a family file a wrongful death lawsuit against a group home?
Yes. If a resident dies due to the group home’s negligence—failure to follow the resident’s care plan, failure to provide required supervision, or other breaches of the duty of care—the family can file a wrongful death lawsuit. These lawsuits typically claim negligence, and may also name the facility, individual staff members, and sometimes the state licensing agency as defendants.
What should a family do if they have concerns about care at a group home?
Families should document all concerns in writing, communicate with facility staff and management in writing when possible, request copies of the resident’s care plan, and escalate concerns to the state licensing agency if the facility does not respond. Maintaining a detailed record of all communications and concerns is important in case legal action becomes necessary later.
What is an individualized care plan and why is it legally binding?
An individualized care plan (often called an IEP or service plan) is a document that outlines the specific medical, behavioral, and support needs of each resident, along with the services and precautions the facility will provide. This plan is legally binding—the facility has a duty to follow it. Deviations from the plan without appropriate justification can constitute negligence if they result in harm.
If a family member discovers an incident at a group home instead of being notified, what does that suggest?
It suggests a serious failure in communication and possibly an attempt to manage liability rather than inform the family. Facilities are typically required to notify families immediately of medical emergencies or serious incidents. Failure to do so deprives families of timely information and the opportunity to be present during critical moments. It also raises questions about whether the facility is operating transparently or attempting to conceal problems.
Can the State be held responsible for group home deaths?
Yes, in some cases. If the state’s oversight agency (which licenses and inspects group homes) failed to enforce regulations, ignored prior complaints, or allowed a facility to operate despite known violations, the state can be named as a defendant in a lawsuit. This is why the State of Illinois was included in this case—the argument is that state oversight should have prevented this death by ensuring Clearbrook followed its own protocols.