Worker Caught Pouring Bleach Into Disabled Patient's Drink: Cops

It has to be seen to be believed because. according to authorities, this is a home. care worker who allegedly poured bleach. into a drink and then handed it to a. disabled client. There are no words. We. are going to talk about the potential. charges and other legal ramifications. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Do you see this? This is footage of an. apparent home care worker out in. Louisiana, identified by authorities as.

30-year-old Reginald Andre Wilson. allegedly pouring bleach into a drink. for his disabled client to drink. Mentally and physically disabled. Oh, and then there's this part. >> Yeah, drink this. >> Here, drink this. That's the alleged. statement. Oh, and by the way, here's a. different angle. Wilson has since been. fired and arrested on multiple charges. So, we're talking mingling harmful. substances, cruelty to persons with. infirmities, aggravated battery, theft. of less than $1,000. And I want to read.

you some parts from the Lake Charles. Police Department's incident report. It's from the Facebook post that they. put out there for the public, and it. kind of fills in some of the blanks. here. It says, quote, "On Monday, September 14th, at approximately 7:26. p.m., officers of the Lake Charles. Police Department were called to the. 2400 block of Anita Drive in reference. to a suspicious circumstance. Once. officers arrived, they learned that the. caretaker had poured bleach into a water. bottle and gave it to the victim, who is.

physically and mentally handicapped and. unable to care for himself." A relative. who resides with the victim reported it. to LCPD. The victim stated that the. caretaker gave him the water bottle and. after drinking it, he noticed it tasted. like bleach. The relative confronted the. caretaker and he admitted to pouring. bleach into the water. Heaven on Earth. Home Health Agency was contacted and the. caretaker was forced to leave the. property prior to officers being. notified. Video footage was observed by. the officer and collected as evidence.

The victim completed a formal. prosecution form to pursue charges. Now, the police department indicated that. they're continuing this investigation. They may release more information as it. develops, but let's just talk about Mr. Wilson for a second. So, Wilson was an. employee of the agency Heaven on Earth, as you just heard. Now, they released a. statement, and it reads, "Heaven on. Earth Network, Inc. administration and. staff are deeply saddened to see what. transpired in the recent video shared on. social media concerning a client and one. of our staff members. I would like to.

start off by saying that our client's. health and safety is our number one. priority and that any abuse is not. tolerated by our agency. We immediately. took action and removed the worker and. transported the client to the ER to be. evaluated. We are working with local. authorities as well as state agencies. according to our policies and. procedures. Because of HIPPA and the. nature of this, I'm not allowed to share. any other details. But I do want to add. that we have some great individuals that. do outstanding work and that the actions. of this one person does not define who. we are. Again, we are cooperating with.

all authorities to seek justice for our. client and the investigation is ongoing. Thank you and continue to pray for our. community and those who are most. vulnerable. Okay. So, look, despite. everything you've heard from a legal. point of view, Wilson is innocent unless. proven guilty. And I don't even believe. at the time of this recording that he's. been officially indicted, which we'll. talk about. But I just got to tell you, you know, those allegations, my gosh, is. this a slam dunk for prosecutors if they.

move forward? What do the potential. charges actually mean? What about a. lawsuit? What about liability for the. agency? A lot to talk about here. Okay, so we were thinking, how do we break. this down? What do we talk about here? How strong of a case is this for a. prosecution team? Well, let me bring on. former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave Aaronburgg, who's with us here in. studio. Always good to see you, sir. Just before we even get started, you're. like everywhere right now. Just tell. everybody where they can find you, the. stuff that you're doing. >> Jesse, I may be everywhere, but I'd.

rather be nowhere else but here. >> That is a very That's a lie, but I liked. it. It was good. Tell everybody where. they can find. >> All right, so they can find me on. YouTube at Dave Aaronburgg. also on my. Substack, Dave Aronberg. Also have a. true crime show on the MK True Crime. Network, MK True Crime. Y. >> that's Megan Kelly's network. And I'm. also. >> uh on all social media from Instagram to. Facebook. Uh come find me. >> It's They don't have to find you. You're. everywhere. People will see you anyway. And um Okay, so I want to ask you this.

>> You look at this case. I I just have to. ask you, is this like a prosecutor's. dream? Is this like a smoking gun. evidence? They have two different angles. of this video. >> This is almost impossible for. prosecutors to lose because when you. look at the the evidence, you have got. the video, you've got also the immediate. reaction from the victim, right? And. then you have the confession afterwards. What else do you want? >> Well, I guess the question is, is there. any way defense attorneys could strike.

that video from coming into evidence? I. mean, what would be potential ways to. get that tossed? Well, you could say. that if you're in a two-party consent. state, you have to have both parties to. consent. And he had a reasonable. expectation of privacy. I don't know. what Louisiana's rule is. In Florida, it's a two-party consent state. New. York, where we are, is a one party. consent state. So, you can try to say, "Hey, this is an illegal recording. inside a house where someone had a. reasonable expectation of privacy.". >> But he would have I guess the argument. he would say is um you know, I didn't.

know it was being videotaped. But also. you have to imagine that somebody in. that position, that um patient, that. client, part of the discussion would be. he was advised uh this caretaker worker, hey, I you know, maybe from a family. member, we have a camera set up for him. just in case, right? >> That's why they're going to lose if they. claim he has a reasonable expectation of. privacy. When you go into someone else's. home, when you're on the job as a. caretaker, you have to expect there. could be a camera there. This is not. your own home, right? This is not a. secret place. There are nanny cams all. over the place. And so he's going to.

lose on that argument. That's why. >> maybe his best thing is is say mistake. Maybe it's uh you know what do you mean. mistake? >> Well, maybe he didn't know there was. bleach in the bottle marked bleach. >> That's I don't know what he's going to. say. A tough one. I guess I guess here's. another point. First of all, let me just. take a step back. Have you handled cases. like this where you have health care. workers who are accused of abusing um. elderly patients or sick patients or. disabled patients? Is that something. you've seen in your practice? Sadly, when I was state attorney for 12 years,

we saw a lot of it in Palm Beach County. We have a large elderly population and. we have people who exploit the elderly. We have guardianship fraud and all types. of fraud against seniors. There's. special statutes for that. That's why I. was surprised at this case. It seems. that the potential prison time here is. relatively light for what I think is. going on. >> I don't know. I'm going to tell you that. in a minute. I went through the charges. Unless I'm looking at wrong, I think. there could be significant prison time. here, but I'll go through it with you. But let's just take a step back. Um, I.

think one of the the concerns about this. is also particularly this patient, this. alleged victim. They're not always in. the best position to report. >> That's right. >> Well, that's why you have the video. But. here, the patient reacted immediately. Defense, there's no place to hide here. I think to me, the more interesting. issue is not whether they're going to. get this defendant, but what about the. company that hired this guy? I I I want. to ask you about the a potential civil. lawsuit, too. And I read the whole, you. know, their whole statement that they. came forward with, too. Oh, before we go.

any further, any cat owners out there, anybody own a cat? Look, who doesn't. want their cat to be happy and healthy, right? Well, I got to tell you about. Smalls, our sponsor, this is the next. best thing. Because most cat food out. there, this is the truth. It's made with. cheap fillers and meat byproducts and. artificial ingredients. It's really. gross. Your cat's health's paying the. price. That's the truth. Smalls is. different because their recipes are made. with preservative free, 100% human grade. ingredients you'd find right in your. fridge. Look, cats rely on protein for. energy. They also need a lot of. hydration to stay healthy and toned. And. Smalls contains at least 80% animal.

protein. Their fresh ingredients are. gently cooked, so they retain all their. nutrients, hydration, flavor. 88% of cat. parents report that after feeding them. smalls, their cats have better. digestion, shinier coats, more energy to. play. The experts have also been raving. about it. Forbes ranked Smalls the best. overall cat food. Buzzfeed reviewers. reported that their cats went ballistic. for this stuff. Look, your cat's health. starts with what they eat. So try. Smalls. Get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and treats for life.

when you go to smalls.com/sidebar. Let me ask you, have you dealt with um. alleged poisoning cases like this? If. that's what we it's being interpreted. as, I mean, pouring a chemical into a. substance for ingestion. Have you. handled those kind of cases before? Not exactly like this, but I had a case. where a student poured bleach in a. teacher's tea and the teacher drank it. and we prosecuted the student. It was. prosecuted as a juvenile and given a. slap on the wrist. He could have killed.

the teacher. It was terrible. And and. the teacher came to court and said, "I. had to go to the hospital. I I was. vomiting for days. It was awful." So, people may think this is funny, a joke, but I wonder what the motive is for a. caretaker. That's my biggest question. In the cases that you've covered before. of alleged caretaker abuse, what was the. motive? Why would they do it? >> Well, there's money. You tried to kill. someone or diminish their capacity so. that you can siphon off their assets. That's something. Or there's also some.

people who just hate the person they're. in charge of taking care of. They they. think, "Oh, this person's life has no. meaning and they take they play God. themselves." So, you have to be really. careful. See, the the problem is in this. field is that there's a big demand for. it and it doesn't pay super well and so. you sometimes scrape the bottom of the. barrel when you do the hiring. That's. why you have to have strict standards. >> And look, he's innocent unless proven. guilty. Um, but I will tell you when you. look at that video, he seemingly walks. very quickly to grab the bleach and pour.

it in almost as if something had just. happened right before. Did you get that. sense? >> Yeah. The patient here is someone who's. paralyzed and who has mental ill mental. disability because of a hit and run. accident. So he's gone through so much. in his life. So we don't know what. happened before. But apparently the. family was suspicious enough of these. caregivers and maybe this one that they. installed the camera. Think of what. would have happened if there was no. camera. Who watches the guardian, right?

You have to have cameras in places like. this. >> In those cases, you have to do. toxicology testing. You would have to do. testing of the drink. You would have to. do testing uh for the person who. ingested uh the liquid as well, right? Is that how it would typically work? >> Yeah. But right, if you don't have the. video, if you didn't have taste, yes, you would have to recreate it. But then. what happens is the caretaker is like, "Oh, you can't trust the guy who is. mentally disabled." This is what happens. with diminished capacity cases with. seniors is that the caretaker, the. guardian who may be stealing. It's like.

you can't trust them that all of a. sudden their gold is missing. They they. have diminished capacity. >> So, let me go through the charges here. First of all, you have aggravated. battery. So, it's a battery committed. with a dangerous weapon. So, basically, you're saying intentional use of force, right? Would you consider the bleach a. dangerous weapon? >> I do. Yes. >> Okay. You have cruelty to the infirmed. So, we look this up. It's cruelty to. persons with infirmities. is the. intentional or criminally negligent. mistreatment or neglect by any person. including a caregiver whereby.

unjustifiable pain, malnourishment or. suffering is caused to a person with an. infirmity, an adult with a disability or. a person who is elderly, including but. not limited to a person who is a. resident of a nursing home facility for. persons with intellectual disabilities, mental health facility, hospital or. other residential facility. It seems on. one hand, I can see how it fits into the. the facts here, but what would a defense. attorney say this this charge maybe. doesn't apply or try to strike close on. it? >> Well, I mean, I think this charge was. created was written into the law for.

situations like this. >> So, I don't know how they get out of it. Now, it it doesn't have to be in a. healthc care facility. You can do it in. someone's home if you're a caregiver. >> So, I I don't know how you get out of. it. >> Well, they say well they say it's not. unjustifiable pain. It's not. malnourishment. It's not suffering. But. >> yeah, but that I mean that's that's what. you're gonna have to go with. But that. doesn't I mean when you put bleach in. someone's drink and the person says. tastes like bleach. I guess you could. say he didn't drink enough to have real. suffering or unjustifiable pain. It's a. tough argument. I mean that's why when. you're a defense lawyer, you're like.

looking to settle right away in a case. like this. >> There's also mingling harmful. substances. So this is mingling harmful. substances is the intentional mingling. of any harmful substance or matter with. any food, drink or medicine with intent. that the same shall be taken by any. human being to his injury. I mean that. one feels to me the most on point, >> right? Although I think this is a less. serious crime than the previous one we. just discussed. >> So I think this charge is up to two. years in prison. Cruelty charges up to. 10 years in prison. And the aggravated.

battery is up to 10 years in prison. And. unless I'm looking at it the wrong way, that's what I believe the statute say. And if I'm correct about that, what. would be a potential sentence here. whether or not he pleads guilty to these. charges or is convicted of these. charges? >> Well, it depends what his wrap sheet is. Does he have any prior? Generally, if. you're in industry like this, there. should be a background check done on you. and you are unlikely to have serious. felonies in your past. So, I would think. as a first-time offender or someone with. very light wrap sheet, he would get.

nowhere near the maximums here. By the. way, when I said earlier that I thought. the penalties were light, I think in the. New York Post article that I read, it. said the maximum penalty was two years. And I think that's where they it was for. that one charge after all three. >> Yeah, I saw that too and then I was. like, what about these other charges? So, again, um that's what I ended up. finding with the research, maybe, you. know, people in the comments see. something different. But in terms of the. alleged confession, right, him allegedly. confessing to a family member, I got to. say, even if the defense tries to throw. that out, I still think the video is all.

you need, right? And here, drink this. That's the alleged statement. >> People lie, but video does not. And here. you have drink this and also you have. the deliberate mixing of the beverage. Here you have him take the container and. then he puts it into the drink and mixes. it up. So this is that's what you do. when you don't want someone to have that. strong bleachy taste at the beginning. >> And I will also tell you two things that. I caught from that video. One, it's not. like it was out of view. Sometimes there.

we've seen cases before like oh what. exactly is being mixed. It seems to be. you know allegedly in view and two it's. done in a way in this other side room. where the alleged victim wouldn't see it. >> and that's why the prosecution has this. guy dead rights and rarely if ever it. gets a case as easy as this one. >> Does this go I believe it goes to a. grand jury indictment out in Louisiana. Um but I think that's probably the next. step. Right. >> Louisiana system will require more. serious crimes to go through a grand. jury. New York has similar system.

Florida, as a prosecute, we just sign. it. You can sign information. The only. cases you need to send to a grand jury. are capital offenses. >> Got it. Okay. Let's put the criminal. case to the side. You mentioned it. before. I feel like this is a civil. nightmare in the sense that the agency. is the agency going to be under the. spotlight. You saw their response. They. were very, very specific in what they. said they did to correct this. information, how immediately they took. steps. Where do you think the AY's. potential liability is here. >> in the background check? I mean, did.

they have a red flag? Did they do a. background check? What they know about. this guy? What kind of training did he. have? So, it's not what they did. afterwards. Sure, they're going to fire. him. They're going to apologize. What. did they do beforehand? That's where. they're open to liability. >> And the question is about. foreseeability, right? I mean, I guess. the question is if there was no red. flags in his background, h how can they. be held liable? How do you know? Did. they train him properly? What kind of. supervision does he have? These are. questions that need to be answered. They. could be sued under vicarious liability.

because. >> for our audience, >> right? Sure. Sure. They're just, you. know, the the people who hire this guy. and you hire the guy and you could say, look, this is an intervening act. This. is an intentional bad actor here. So, if. this guy were negligent, right, then. it'd be much easier to sue the company. If it's an. >> in because he's an agent of the company. So whatever that agent does for the. company, you're automatically liable, >> right? But here's an intentional bad. act. So they say like, how how are you. going to foresee that when here's a guy. just went off the deep end? But then you.

say, well, did you know about his past? Did you check his past? Did you train. him properly? Did you supervise him. properly? So these are questions are. going to be asked and the discovery will. be really interesting to find out how. this guy got hired and what kind of. correspondence, what kind of interviews, what kind of vetting that the company. did. Does it put the agency in the. spotlight for their other employees? >> I would say so. I think right now the. lawyers for this company are probably. looking at all their other employees. like where did they get this guy from. and anyone else we got through the same.

way. We need to double check. >> How much does the criminal case affect. the civil a potential civil case? We tal. about there's no lawsuit that's been. filed. There's no notice of a claim. being filed or anything like that. So. just we're just hypothetically. addressing what we may see here, but how. much would this criminal case affect the. a potential civil case? Well, if the. criminal case results in a guilty. verdict, yeah, that's going to help the. criminal the civil case. I would think. the lawyers are chomping at the bit to. get at this one. Bet there's a line out. the door to sue this company who may or.

may not be a deep pocket, but I'm sure. they have insurance because if you're in. this field, you have to have insurance. >> And these kind of agencies, do you see. them being sued often for for the. alleged actions of their employees? >> They are sued because of bad outcomes. So if something happens like and. families will want to blame someone if. they see their loved one all of a sudden. not wake up one day or have bed sores. and so they're going to look at these. companies. Now it's like medical. malpractice you know there's a certain.

level of these are older individuals and. so it's harder to sue based on the. quality of life that they have like what. are the damages but here you have. someone who is not 95 years old. someone. who has an actual time frame of his life. which is probably longer than a. 95year-old even though he's paralyzed. and mental mentally disabled but his. life obviously is worth something and. this caretaker didn't seem to appreciate. that. >> Two things about this as I'm wondering. about it. one, if there was just a sip. and that was it, is that still going to.

be materialized into a real full-blown. lawsuit with damages or do you have if. there was no serious repercussions or. harm or injuries as a result, can you. still have a successful lawsuit with. damages? >> Yes, you don't have to have a death or. serious bodily injury. It's easier to. get damages, but if you have a company. who failed to do a background check or. properly supervise and that employee fed. this guy bleach and then even though he. may say it tastes bad, you know, that's.

something in your system that's just not. going to go away instantly. >> Yeah. Well, and then it makes me wonder. given what we seemingly see on this. tape, is this the first time that he. allegedly did something? Right. And so. not only to this particular patient, but. to anyone else. Do prosecutors, does law. enforcement, do civil attorneys, do they. start going through every patient he. ever worked with or every client he. worked with? Do they go back and look at. the full history here? And maybe that.

mounts to additional charges or uh more. potential counts in a civil suit. >> The civil lawyers will surely look at. the company and this employee and anyone. else cuz this is now going to make their. eyes swell. the civil lawyer is like, "Wow, this could be a deep pocket with. insurance who has not properly. supervised his employees." On a criminal. basis, if they can find that there were. others who committed crimes or this guy. committed crimes, yes, but generally if. he had other bad acts in his past, there's statute of limitations issues. and then there you can't bring up.

propensity evidence to prove that he did. something wrong in this case. Meaning, you can't prove that he had other bad. acts to prove that he did something. wrong in this case. When you say. insurance, by the way, like these. agencies, do their insurance plans cover. for the alleged tors, alleged bad. actions of their employees? >> Well, that's where having an intentional. act could make it tougher for the. plaintiff's lawyers because negligence. would be covered under insurance. policies, but when you have a rogue. employee who does something crazy.

intentionally, some insurance companies. won't cover that. >> Okay. Wow. So, there's a lot of moving. parts to this. Um I I I'm just happy. that you know this patient's okay uh. given what we saw. It's just it's really. really disturbing situation. But look. again, Mr. Wilson, he's innocent unless. proven guilty. We'll see uh what happens. with potential charges. But Dave. Aronberg, thank you for taking the time, sir. Good to see you. >> Always a great show, Jesse. Thanks for. having. >> That's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. Like and subscribe,

and I'll see you next time.