A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against Clearbrook, the operator of a state-licensed Community Integrated Living Arrangement (CILA) group home in Rolling Meadows, alleging that the facility’s negligence and failure to follow established care protocols led to the death of Emily Kasanga, a 34-year-old resident with a diagnosed swallowing disorder. Emily died on April 25, 2026, after choking while eating without the required supervision mandated by her care plan. The lawsuit, filed by Emily’s family, names Joyce Ezunu, a direct support professional at the facility, as a defendant and alleges that staff failed to follow critical safety measures including close supervision during meals, proper food preparation, and the presence of at least two staff members while Emily ate.
This case underscores a critical vulnerability in the oversight of group homes serving vulnerable adults. Emily’s death was not merely a tragic accident—it was allegedly preventable through adherence to documented care requirements. Her family had already raised serious concerns about her care with the Illinois Office of the Inspector General, reporting issues with hygiene, missing personal items, inadequate emotional support, and bullying by other residents. Those complaints reportedly went unresolved, setting the stage for the fatal incident that followed.
Table of Contents
- What Happened at the Clearbrook Facility in Rolling Meadows?
- The Clearbrook Facility and Prior Complaints About Care Quality
- Care Plan Requirements and the Critical Role of Supervision
- The Role of Staff and Direct Support Professionals
- Negligence, Duty of Care, and Wrongful Death Claims
- Prior Complaints and the Pattern of Inadequate Care
- What This Case Means for Families and Residents in Group Homes
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Happened at the Clearbrook Facility in Rolling Meadows?
Emily Kasanga’s death occurred at a moment when she was at her most vulnerable—during a meal. For individuals with swallowing disorders, eating is not a casual activity; it is a medically supervised task that demands strict adherence to established protocols. According to the lawsuit, Emily’s care plan explicitly required that she be closely supervised during meals, that her food be cut into appropriately small pieces, and that at least two staff members be present while she ate. On the day of her death, these protections were allegedly absent.
She choked while eating, and the facility’s failure to maintain the supervision structure that her medical condition demanded is at the heart of the family’s wrongful death claim. The community integrated living arrangement model is designed to provide residential support to adults with developmental disabilities or other support needs. group homes like the Clearbrook facility in Rolling Meadows operate under state licensing requirements, which exist precisely because residents like Emily often cannot fully advocate for their own safety. The violation of Emily’s care plan was not a minor administrative oversight—it was a direct deviation from the written medical and safety requirements that the facility had agreed to follow. Direct support professionals, like the staff member named in the lawsuit, are trained and expected to execute these care protocols without exception.
The Clearbrook Facility and Prior Complaints About Care Quality
The Clearbrook group home where Emily lived operates as a state-licensed facility, which means it is subject to state oversight and licensing standards. However, licensing alone does not guarantee that residents receive adequate care. Emily’s family had documented serious concerns before her death, reporting them to the Illinois Office of the Inspector General. These complaints included inadequate hygiene, missing personal items and clothing, insufficient emotional support, and instances of bullying by other residents.
The fact that these complaints reportedly remained unresolved is a significant warning sign about the facility’s responsiveness to family concerns and its willingness to address systemic care deficiencies. One of the most troubling aspects of this case is that it suggests a pattern of inattention to residents’ needs. Hygiene lapses, missing personal possessions, and inadequate emotional support are not isolated incidents—they are indicators of an environment where individual residents may not be receiving personalized, attentive care. For a facility serving vulnerable adults, such lapses raise urgent questions about staff training, oversight, and management priorities. The presence of bullying among residents, unchecked by staff, compounds the picture of an environment where residents are not adequately protected.
Care Plan Requirements and the Critical Role of Supervision
Emily’s care plan was not a suggestion; it was a medical directive born from her documented swallowing disorder. A swallowing disorder, or dysphagia, is a serious medical condition that affects a person’s ability to move food or liquid from the mouth through the esophagus safely. Individuals with this condition face a real risk of aspiration—the entry of food or liquid into the airway—which can lead to choking, infection, and death. The requirement for close supervision during meals, appropriately sized food portions, and multiple staff members present represents standard practice in medical and residential care for individuals with this diagnosis.
The lawsuit alleges that these protections were not in place during the meal when Emily choked. This raises a fundamental question about accountability in group home care: if a facility accepts responsibility for a resident with specific medical needs and develops a care plan to address those needs, what does it mean when that plan is ignored? The answer, from the perspective of wrongful death litigation, is that the facility has breached its duty of care to the resident. When that breach directly results in death, it becomes grounds for a negligence claim. The failure was not accidental or unforeseeable—it was the failure to do what was already written down and required.
The Role of Staff and Direct Support Professionals
Joyce Ezunu, named as a defendant in the lawsuit, holds the position of direct support professional at the Clearbrook facility. Direct support professionals are responsible for the day-to-day care, supervision, and safety of residents. In Emily’s case, the lawsuit alleges that Ezunu failed to maintain the required supervision during the meal that led to Emily’s death. This is a specific, individual failure that occurred within the context of broader facility failures.
Whether the failure was due to inadequate training, understaffing, inattention, or willful disregard, the legal consequence is the same: Emily’s care plan was not followed, and she died as a result. The accountability framework in wrongful death cases typically extends beyond individual employees to the facility itself and its operators. Clearbrook, as the facility operator and licensee, bears responsibility for ensuring that all staff members are trained, supervised, and held accountable for following established care protocols. If the facility failed to train Ezunu adequately, failed to supervise her performance, or failed to enforce adherence to care plans, those failures are separate grounds for liability against the facility itself. In many cases, both the individual staff member and the facility are named as defendants because both may bear legal responsibility for the death.
Negligence, Duty of Care, and Wrongful Death Claims
A wrongful death claim arising from negligence requires establishing four key elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In Emily’s case, the duty is clear—Clearbrook and its staff owed Emily a legal and medical duty of care, which was documented in her care plan. The breach is alleged to be the failure to follow that care plan during the fatal meal. Causation is the direct link between the breach and Emily’s death—if the care plan had been followed, Emily would not have been choking without supervision.
The damages are the loss of Emily’s life, the grief and suffering of her family, and potentially the expenses related to her medical care and death. Wrongful death cases in the context of nursing homes and group homes have evolved significantly over the past two decades. Courts and juries increasingly recognize that vulnerable residents deserve a high standard of care and that facilities operating under state licenses assume a significant responsibility to protect them. When a resident dies due to a facility’s failure to follow its own documented care protocols, juries are often sympathetic to the family’s claim that the death was preventable and that the facility should be held accountable. The damages awarded in such cases can be substantial, reflecting not only the economic value of the resident’s life but also the non-economic losses to the family—grief, loss of companionship, and the emotional impact of knowing that the death was preventable.
Prior Complaints and the Pattern of Inadequate Care
The complaints that Emily’s family filed with the Illinois Office of the Inspector General before her death paint a picture of a facility where residents’ needs were not being met. Hygiene issues suggest that basic daily care routines may not have been consistently followed. Missing clothing and personal items indicate inadequate tracking and management of residents’ possessions. Inadequate emotional support suggests that staff were not engaged in meaningful interaction with residents. Bullying by other residents, unchecked by staff, indicates that the facility was not maintaining a safe social environment.
These are not minor quality-of-life concerns; they are signs of systemic neglect. The failure of these complaints to be resolved is itself a form of institutional failure. Oversight agencies like the Illinois Office of the Inspector General exist to investigate complaints and compel facilities to address deficiencies. If complaints were filed and not acted upon—if the facility was not required to implement corrective measures—then the oversight system itself may have failed Emily. This pattern of unresolved complaints, combined with the fatal incident that followed, creates a compelling narrative of a facility that was not meeting its obligations to its most vulnerable residents.
What This Case Means for Families and Residents in Group Homes
Emily Kasanga’s death and the wrongful death lawsuit that followed serve as a stark reminder that state licensing does not guarantee adequate care. Families with loved ones in group homes or nursing facilities should view their role as one of continuous, active oversight. This means regular visits, direct observation of care routines, maintenance of detailed records of concerns, and formal documentation of complaints to appropriate oversight agencies. In Emily’s case, her family did attempt to raise concerns through official channels, but those efforts did not result in changes before the fatal incident occurred.
The lesson is that families cannot rely solely on regulatory oversight; they must also consider whether they need to escalate concerns to law enforcement, the media, and legal counsel. The lawsuit filed by Emily’s family against Clearbrook and its staff may result in a financial judgment that, while it cannot restore Emily’s life, acknowledges the wrongfulness of her death and the facility’s responsibility for it. Such judgments also create financial consequences for facilities that fail to follow established protocols, potentially incentivizing safer practices across the industry. For other residents and families, Emily’s case is a warning: group homes and nursing facilities must follow their own care plans, and when they do not, the consequences can be fatal. Families and advocates should ensure that care plans are specific, detailed, and include safeguards for residents with medical vulnerabilities like swallowing disorders.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Community Integrated Living Arrangement (CILA)?
A CILA is a state-licensed residential program designed to provide community-based support to adults with developmental disabilities or other support needs. Group homes like the Clearbrook facility in Rolling Meadows operate under CILA licensing, which includes oversight and care standards set by state agencies.
What is a swallowing disorder, and why does it require supervision during meals?
A swallowing disorder, or dysphagia, is a medical condition that impairs a person’s ability to safely move food or liquid from the mouth through the esophagus. Individuals with this condition face a risk of aspiration and choking. Supervision during meals, appropriately prepared food, and the presence of trained staff are standard safety measures used to prevent life-threatening incidents.
What is a direct support professional, and what are their responsibilities?
A direct support professional is a staff member in a residential care facility who provides day-to-day support, supervision, and personal care to residents. They are responsible for helping residents with daily tasks, monitoring their health and safety, administering care according to established care plans, and reporting concerns to supervisory staff.
Can a family sue a group home or nursing facility for wrongful death?
Yes. If a resident dies due to the facility’s negligence or failure to follow established care protocols, the family may file a wrongful death lawsuit. Such claims require proving that the facility owed the resident a duty of care, that the facility breached that duty, that the breach directly caused the death, and that the family has suffered damages as a result.
What should families do if they have concerns about a loved one’s care in a group home?
Families should document concerns, conduct regular visits and observations, communicate directly with facility management, file formal complaints with state oversight agencies (such as state health departments or offices of the inspector general), and if serious safety issues are suspected, consider consulting with an attorney about legal options.
What can result from a successful wrongful death lawsuit?
If a wrongful death claim is successful, the court or jury may award damages to the family, which typically include economic losses (medical expenses, funeral costs) and non-economic losses (grief, loss of companionship, emotional suffering). In cases involving facility negligence, damages can be substantial.