The former operator of the Cresson Secure Treatment Unit for juveniles has denied a claim by a man in his 30s who contends that he was sexually abused by a staff member when he was housed there.

The alleged victim of the abuse, Brandon Boettiger, filed a federal complaint in November contending that while he resided in the treatment unit from 2008-11 (between the ages of 15 to 18), he suffered repeated sexual abuse from a supervisor.

He used only the first name of the man who allegedly assaulted him.

That abuse, he contended, was nonconsensual.

The attorney representing the alleged victim, Max Petrunya of Pittsburgh, maintains the continued sexual and emotional abuse suffered has had a dramatic impact on his client’s life, which include symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems.

“Also, as a result of the sexual, physical, and/or emotional abuse … and its consequential trauma and harm, (the victim) has incurred significant loss of wages and future loss of earning capacity,” the lawsuit states.

The defendant in the lawsuit is the Justice Resource Institute of Needham, Mass., which operated the secure treatment center in Cresson.

The center closed a decade ago, but in 2024, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Boettiger.

The case was initially dismissed because of lack of specific detail, but presiding Judge Mark A. Hornak of Pennsylvania’s Western District allowed the plaintiff’s attorney to file an amended complaint.

That amended complaint, which names the plaintiff, was filed in late November.

The Massachusetts firm answered the complaint last week by stating it denies the allegations, and “further denies that (Boettiger) has been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or is entitled to any relief whatsoever, or at all.”

JRI, for instance, when confronted with the statement in the plaintiff’s complaint that it was responsible for the oversight, management, control, hiring, policies and procedures and operations of the Cresson Secure facility, answered that the paragraph “contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the defendant was contracted to operate Cresson at all times.”

The answer demanded proof of any statements that allegedly defined JRI’s responsibility in operating the facility.

In its answer, JRI categorically denied any harm to the plaintiff that is described in the complaint.

That denial included a charge that JRI turned a “blind eye” to sexual abuse that the plaintiff alleges occurred at the facility.

In an order issued on Dec. 31, the judge gave both sides 21 days to submit a discovery plan and agree to participate in the Court’s Alternative Resolution Program.