What did Dr. Benjamin Davis, half million dollar a year salaried assistant professor at UAMS not understand? He forced Sean Lynn to stay at UAMS Hospital for two weeks. He forced administration of fentanyl and a slew of other drugs on Mr. Lynn after the patient pointed at 2 out of 10 on a pain scale. Dr. Davis’s intention was to rack up $23,000 per week in charges.

In response to a complaint filed by Sean Lynn and me, his mother, Benjamin L. Davis misstated: “Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality v. Brighton Corporation, et al. 352 Ark. 396, 102 S.W.3d 458 (2003). In that case, Plaintiff made allegations as to a corporation, along with several other individual defendants. Id. However, the plaintiff only generally alleged that the “defendants . . . transported and/or disposed of hazardous wastes contrary to the rules, regulations, permits, or orders issued….” Id., 102 S.W.3d at 466.”

Two paragraphs later, the AEDQ court wrote: “As we pointed out above, the only paragraph directly linking the defendants to USI is paragraph 31, and clearly, that paragraph states only that the defendants were customers who brought their waste oil to USI for disposal. It contains no factual allegations specifying which, if any, of the defendants contributed any PCB-containing oil to the site, how much or when any given defendant may have contributed used oil, or the purposes for which the defendants conducted business with USI. The mere recitation that the defendants were ‘generators’ or ‘transporters’ who brought hazardous substances or hazardous waste to the USI site ‘for disposal,’ without any further facts to support a conclusion that the defendants came within the meanings of these terms, simply fails to comport with our fact-pleading requirements.” Arkansas Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 352 Ark. at 408–09, 102 S.W.3d at 466.

The complaint filed against Dr. Benjamin Divis was by no means a complete listing of each drug he administered, each time he ordered the use of physical restraints or each plea for food and water that the doctor ignored. But here is what was specified in the complaint:

¶ 3. Benjamin L. Davis is a medical doctor. Compl., at p. 4.

            ¶ 60. “Benjamin Davis deemed [Sean]’s decision to leave as agitation and, on that basis, unlawfully assumed decision-making authority over him.” Compl., at p. 14.

            ¶ 61. “No valid consent was ever obtained. [Sean] does not recall signing any consent form. The only document purporting to be consent is dated January 14 at 4:09 p.m. and lists the signatory as “significant,” with a signature resembling [Sean]’s.” Because “no” valid consent was ever obtained, this means Benjamin L. Davis did not obtain valid consent. Compl., at p. 14.

            ¶ 107. “Despite repeatedly referring to [Sean] as being on a ‘72-hour hold,’ Defendants failed to produce, serve, or document any lawful hold order. Instead, defendants including but not limited to [others and]  Benjamin Davis, repeatedly “restarted” or extended purported holds without notice, process, or legal authority, subjecting [Sean] to continuous confinement.” Compl., at p. 22.

            ¶ 182. “January 22: Benjamin Davis ordered dexMEDEtomidine (Precedex) 400 mcg/NaCl 0.9 % 100 mL (4 mcg/mL) infusion into [Sean]’s body without consent.” Compl., at p. 33.

            ¶ 186. “January 23: Benjamin Davis ordered dexMEDEtomidine (Precedex) 400 mcg/NaCl 0.9 % 100 mL (4 mcg/mL) infusion into [Sean]’s body without consent.” Compl., at p. 34.

            ¶ 188. “January 23: Benjamin Davis ordered and Christian Rosenbaum drew blood from [Sean] without consent.” Compl., at p. 34.

            ¶ 196. “January 24 at 2:02 p.m.: dexMEDEtomidine (Precedex) IV ordered by Benjamin Davis.” Compl., at p. 35.

            ¶ 251. “Numerous defendants told [Laura] that police would stop [Sean] and her from leaving. Dr. Benjamin L. Davis, M.D. noted on January 27 in contradiction. ‘It was made clear to me the police would be no help without a 72 hour psych hold, which, as stated above, was impossible.’” Compl., at p. 44.

¶ 252. “On January 27, Benjamin Davis wrote: On morning rounds Mr. Lynn appeared physically robust but asked the same question (when can I go home?) repeatedly, despite repeated exhortations that he needs eunatremia and TBI rehab. He was told by his nurse and at least THREE physicians today, on multiple occasions that going home isn’t safe. As was his mother, as this was in her presence every single time. She stated her intention to leave with him. We attempted to place a 72 hour hold but then learned he’d already had one this admission, and a second one isn’t possible. We asked psych to weigh in but ultimately, it is clear that the patient himself does not have capacity, but determination about his mother’s decision making capabilty [sic] was outside their realm of expertise since she is not a patient.” Compl., at p. 44.

            ¶ 253. “At no time during [Sean]’s two-week confinement did Defendants request or obtain consent from [Laura] for treatment, restraint, sedation, nor invasive procedures.” Compl., at p. 44. This means Benjamin L. Davis did not request or obtain consent from Laura.

            In paragraphs 254 to 257, the plaintiffs claimed that a representative of Benjamin L. Davis’s insurer, The Doctors Insurance, wrote to Sean, without a copy to Laura, that Laura was onboard with allowing the physical and chemical restraints. The plaintiffs gave facts that prove that was a lie. Benjamin L. Davis’s agent made malicious, false statements about Laura that were reasonably meant to cause disharmony between the plaintiffs, mother and son. “Such conduct demonstrates consciousness of wrongdoing and an effort to reframe unlawful confinement as voluntary medical care after the fact.” Compl., at p. 45.

            ¶ 293. “On January 23 at 2:21 p.m., Benjamin Davis wrote that he spent 35 minutes of discontinuous critical care time with [Sean] that was ‘exclusive of procedures or educational activities.’ [Sean]’s entire hospitalization was for educational activities that benefited the professors, such as Assistant Professor Benjamin Davis who was paid $571,750.96 in fiscal year 2024, and the residents and trainees who used [Sean] as an unwilling educational tool.” Compl., at p. 53.

            In addition, in paragraph 3, the plaintiffs said Benjamin L. Davis, M.D. is a “clinician defendant.” Where “each clinician defendant” or “all clinician defendants” were discussed, that includes Benjamin L. Davis. Likewise, where “the defendants” acted, that includes Benjamin L. Davis. Where “no” person took an action, that means Benjamin L. Davis failed to take that action also.

            “The clinician defendants unlawfully violated [Sean]’s right to refuse treatment after mistakenly adopting an erroneous report of how an injury occurred.” Compl., at p. 6 (heading before paragraph 11). “The clinician defendants” includes each clinician defendant including Dr. Benjamin L. Davis.

            ¶ 31. Benjamin L. Davis and all “the clinician defendants should have inquired from the only witness, [Sean], or wrote ‘unknown’ as to how the blunt force trauma occurred.” Compl., at p. 8-9.

            ¶ 57. “Under Arkansas law, where a patient refuses care and no valid surrogate exists, treatment may proceed only upon a court granting a petition supported by medical certification of necessity. Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-604. No such petition was sought or obtained for the clinician defendants [including Benjamin L. Davis] to treat [Sean]. Instead, Defendants disregarded [Sean]’s refusal and proceeded without lawful consent.” Compl., at p. 13.

            ¶ 67. “From the moment [Laura] arrived on January 14, she consistently communicated [Sean]’s refusal of further treatment and his longstanding aversion to institutional medical care.” Compl., at p. 15. This includes all communications Laura had with Benjamin L. Davis, also.

            ¶ 79. “The clinician defendants kept telling [Sean] death was imminent.” Compl., at p. 18. Benjamin L. Davis, when present or transmitted by one of his underlings, told Sean this and told Laura when she was present.

            ¶ 81. “Despite [Sean]’s reasonable refusal of treatment, all Defendants imprisoned him in UAMS Medical Center for two weeks. He was confined to a room, half the time with no shower and no bed for his visitors [including Laura], with no refrigerator nor cooking facilities, and with annoying noises.” Compl., at p. 18.

            ¶ 82. “All Defendants denied visitation from [Sean]’s then eight-year-old daughter, even though one of the staff noted the positive effect just speaking to his daughter on the telephone had on [Sean].” Compl., at p. 18. This includes Benjamin L. Davis and caused a dilemma for Laura, discussed elsewhere, as Laura provided transportation and care for Sean’s daughter when school was not in session.

            ¶ 103. “Despite the absence of any documented ENT emergency, and no petition filed by Navuluri, Boyette or any clinician defendant, [Sean] remained confined and subject to ongoing restraint and sedation.” Compl., at p. 21. Dr. Benjamin L. Davis did not file a petition for a medical hold. Neither did any clinician defendant.

            ¶ 105. “[Sean], when not in a drug-induced stupor, continually tried to escape or convince the clinician defendants to allow him safe passage.” Compl., at p. 22.

            ¶ 120. “All clinician defendants deprived [Sean] of sleep by both physical contact and nuisance.” Compl., at p. 24.

            ¶ 206. “During several attempts by the clinician defendants to apply physical restraints or capture [Sean] who was running down hallways trying to escape, there was transference of the battery to [Laura].” Compl., at p. 36. It is likely that Benjamin L. Davis was involved in ordering, and maybe physically participating in the struggles that resulted in harm to Laura.

            ¶ 207. “The clinician defendants caused [Sean] to experience exacerbated aphasia and auditory impairment that affected his ability to express himself verbally, though he retained comprehension and reasoning.” Compl., at p. 36.

¶ 208. “The defendants mischaracterized these communication impairments as lack of capacity and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead of adjusting communication methods, the defendants used Sean’s impaired speech as rationalization to override Sean’s expressed refusal of their involvement.” Compl., at p. 36.

¶ 210. “Emily Gray observed clear non-verbal communication of [Sean]’s desire for food and inexplicably recommended withholding food—a recommendation that was adopted by all the clinician defendants.”  Compl., at p. 37. “All” includes Benjamin L. Davis.

¶ 218. “[Laura] brought high sodium bottled soup and the clinician defendants left it unopened. [Laura] brought shelf safe pureed fruits and vegetables, and the clinician defendants did not offer them to [Sean] when he was physically restrained—which was a high percentage of the time.” Compl., at p. 38. Benjamin L. Davis failed to order or himself feed Sean the food he wanted and that helped heal the hyponatremia within four days of leaving UAMS.

¶ 220. “The food provided consisted of small portions of highly processed, high-sugar items with minimal protein or sodium. When [Sean]’s sodium levels declined precipitously, the clinician defendants did not respond with targeted nutritional support.” Compl., at p. 39 (discussing Benjamin L. Davis).

¶ 222. “Instead, nutrition support was initiated solely because [Sean] had been chemically sedated by the clinician defendants.” Compl., at p. 39 (discussing Benjamin L. Davis).

¶ 228. “By denying Sean adequate nutrition while preventing his family from caring for him, the clinician defendants [including Benjamin L. Davis] acted with malice—consciously disregarding their custodial obligations and exposing Sean to foreseeable physical and psychological harm during a period of forced confinement.” Compl., at p. 40.

“The defendants gave [Laura] distressful misinformation and false promises to enlist her support.” Compl., at p. 42 (heading before ¶ 234).

¶ 236 describes how the clinician defendants, that includes Benjamin L. Davis, defrauded Laura into trying to keep Sean from leaving UAMS from January 19 until January 21 when it was apparent Benjamin L. Davis and the others were lying to her. Compl., at p. 42.

The entire Count I concerning harms to Sean refers to Benjamin L. Davis, M.D. including but not limited to:

¶ 315. “Each supervising physician and attending clinician was responsible not only for his or her own acts and omissions, but also for the supervision and conduct of trainees acting under their orders and authority.” Compl., at p. 58.

¶ 318. “Each individual defendant, by acts or omissions, directly restrained [Sean], confining him with no reasonable means of escape.” Compl., at p. 58.

¶ 320. “Each Defendant was required to be familiar with UAMS policy, derived from Constitutional law, that patients, barring a legal order, have the right to refuse treatment.” Compl., at p. 58.

¶ 323. “Each Individual Defendant took part in or facilitated harmful physical contact with [Sean]. Some administered medication or restraints; others chased and tackled [Sean] or stood by while it occurred, despite having a duty to intervene.” Compl., at p. 59.

¶ 375. “[Laura] asserts her claim against all clinician defendants, as each participated in, authorized, or failed to intervene in conduct that created a foreseeable risk of harm. Discovery will further identify the specific acts and actors involved.” Compl., at p. 68.

¶ 376. “At the time of these events, [Laura] was a sixty-one-year-old woman with Hashimoto’s disease and chronic insomnia, both of which were controlled prior to [Sean]’s confinement. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, [Laura]’s sleep was severely disrupted, her medically necessary dietary restrictions were abandoned, and her physical recovery regressed.” Compl., at p. 68.

¶ 377. “Defendants’ conduct also interfered with [Laura]’s daily functioning and obligations, including her ability to study for the LSAT, attend her own medical appointments without undue burden, and provide transportation for [Sean]’s minor child.” Compl., at p. 68.

            This was only a sampling of Benjamin L. Davis’s conduct. It is significantly more specificity than Benjamin L. Davis stated in his motion to dismiss. His name appears 65 times in the version of the medical report provided to the plaintiffs on May 5, 2025. The plaintiffs can list each of the recorded instances in a “Benjamin L. Davis” section of the first amended complaint. It would be easier to accomplish if UAMS would use a function on its software to create a report by user name. UAMS has explicitly refused to do this.

            The plaintiffs cannot know with certainty each time Benjamin L. Davis entered the room of confinement, because Benjamin L. Davis did not request that the surveillance videos be preserved. Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for spoliation sanctions similar to the motion that was pending at the Claims Commission when UAMS requested that Plaintiffs exhaust insurance. There was video taken in the hallways and stairwells that would show when Dr. Benjamin L. Davis entered the room of confinement, but Dr. Benjamin L. Davis did not request those videos be preserved. Surveillance Videos That Were Destroyed. An aggrieved party can request that a jury be instructed to draw a negative inference against a spoliator, and plaintiff can ask for discovery sanctions or seek to have criminal prosecution initiated against the party who destroyed relevant evidence. Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co., Inc., 342 Ark. 143, 150, 27 S.W.3d 387, 391 (2000).

Do you think that is enough specificity to allow for proceedings to continue against Dr. Davis?

Hey, think about this. If you ever go to UAMS and disagree with the doctor’s suggestion that you stay in a $4,300 per night room for “observation” for an indefinite period, you may not be able to leave. Even though the written policy says that patients have a right to refuse treatment, that is not the policy of the state hospital.