Case Background
A Santa Clara County jury awarded $3.5 million to a woman who said an in-patient addiction treatment center and one of its counselors failed her while she sought help for alcohol addiction. The Plaintiff, identified in Court records as Jane Doe, filed her complaint on January 19, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.
Doe lived in Los Gatos and turned to Support Systems Homes, Inc. in September 2021 to treat her alcohol addiction. According to her complaint, the company ran an in-patient addiction treatment center at 264 North Morrison Avenue in San Jose. Doe alleged that the center advertised itself as a licensed program that would house clients around the clock, pair each client with a certified counselor, and prepare a discharge plan to support long-term recovery.
Doe alleged that the facility delivered none of that for her. She claimed the center was not licensed and that it assigned her to Filipos Markolefas, a counselor she described as uncertified, improperly trained, and unsupervised. The complaint stated that Markolefas had worked as a real estate agent and lacked the background to counsel people recovering from addiction.
Cause
Doe brought four claims against the Defendants: declaratory relief, negligence, improper hiring and supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The negligence claim is the one the jury decided, according to the records reviewed. Doe built her case around a single idea: that the facility promised professional, licensed care and then placed her with an unqualified man who exploited her vulnerability.
Injury
Doe said the experience deepened her suffering instead of easing it. She claimed Markolefas took advantage of her while she was emotionally fragile and dependent on medication the facility gave her. The complaint stated that the abuse caused severe and lasting emotional distress, and that Doe was forced to make the decision to end a pregnancy, which added to her anguish. She also alleged that the center released her without the discharge plan it had promised.
Damages Sought
Doe asked for general and special damages above the Court's jurisdictional minimum. On her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, she sought punitive damages. She also requested attorney's fees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest, and any further relief the Court found proper.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Mark Hooshmand | Tyler Rougeau
Defendants: Support Systems Homes, Inc., and Filipos Markolefas
· Counsel for Support Systems Homes, Inc.: Joseph Salazar, Jr., | Catalina Baenen | Ryan James Matthews
· Counsel for Filipos Markolefas: Jianlin Song | Otis Felder | Naina Varma Singh | Susan E. Bishop | Iris C. Chiu
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Doe's complaint described a facility that put profit ahead of patient safety. She alleged the center knew its clients were disabled and vulnerable because of their addictions yet pressured them to extend their stays and buy more services. She claimed the facility hired Markolefas without a proper background check, and that an online search would have shown he was unqualified. Doe also alleged the center left Markolefas alone with female clients for long stretches without supervision, even though it knew he was unfit and was not following its own rules.
Doe argued that the facility benefited financially from Markolefas's conduct and ratified it by keeping him on staff. She claimed the company failed to train and supervise him, failed to provide a female counselor or supervisor for her sessions, and did not report him as required under mandatory reporting rules. She tied the facility's negligent hiring and supervision directly to the harm she suffered.
Defense
Markolefas denied every allegation through a general denial in his answer. He raised a series of affirmative defenses, arguing that Doe was herself careless and that her own conduct contributed to her injuries. He also pointed to the fault of others, asserted that she failed to mitigate her damages, and claimed that an independent intervening cause, not his actions, brought about any harm.
His remaining defenses included indemnity, estoppel, waiver, consent, and the position that his conduct was justified or privileged. He further argued that he acted reasonably and with due care, conducting himself as any reasonable certified counselor would have under the same circumstances. Markolefas asked the Court to rule that Doe take nothing and to award him costs and attorney's fees.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on January 12, 2026, before the Honorable Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 21 of the Santa Clara Superior Court. A jury of twelve, joined by six alternates, heard the evidence. After the Court instructed the jury and counsel delivered closing arguments, the case went to the jury.
On February 5, 2026, the jury returned its special verdict for Jane Doe. The jurors found that Markolefas acted negligently and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing Doe's harm. They reached the same conclusion about Support Systems Homes, Inc., finding the company negligent and its negligence a substantial factor in her harm.
The jury awarded Doe $1.5 million for past pain, suffering, and emotional distress, and $2 million for future pain, suffering, and emotional distress, bringing the total to $3.5 million. The jurors decided that Doe had not been negligent, and they also found that a man named Brian Hanly, whom the verdict form asked them to consider, had not been negligent.
The jury then divided responsibility for the harm. It assigned 70 percent of the fault to Support Systems Homes, Inc., and 30 percent to Markolefas, placing no fault on Doe or Hanly.
Judge Manoukian entered judgment in Doe's favor. The Court awarded costs to the Plaintiff, to be added to the judgment amount, though the cost figure was left blank in the records reviewed.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
