Judge stops eviction of resident

William C. Lhotka of the St. louis Post-dispatch wrote an article about a Judge preventing a nursing home from evicting a resident from a nursing home.  Below is an excerpt of his article:

A judge has barred an Ellisville nursing home from discharging a resident in a billing dispute because of the possible traumatic effects of transferring her to another care facility.  The judge found for the family of Barbara H. Lindsay and against Bethesda Long Term Care Inc. which operates Bethesda Meadow.  The ruling means the nursing home cannot move Lindsay to another nursing home when Bethesda alleged Lindsay's family owed the company past due bills.

Lindsay's son Douglas contended that the bill was erroneous and that his mother was too fragile to move.   Jacqueline Levey, attorney for the Lindsays, argued before Vincent that "any nursing facility wishing to expel an elderly or disabled resident can simply manufacture a series of grossly inaccurate billing statements."

Bethesda lawyer James W. Erwin had contended that some billing errors by Bethesda didn't negate the failure of the Lindsay family to make payments.  On the day before the hearing in October, the Lindsay family paid its bill in full. Nonetheless, the nursing home proceeded with the discharge, said Levey, the family's lawyer.

Vincent cited medical testimony in his order that Barbara Lindsay "is very fragile and has very little strength." The judge said the nursing home provided no evidence that "a safe and orderly discharge could be accomplished."


DNR does not mean do not treat!

Santa Cruz Sentinel has an article about the tragedy that is all too common for many nursing home residents.  Nursing homes fail to train on what DNR status means, and far too often simple care is not provided that would save a resident's life.  Below are excerpts from the article.

The Tragedy: On Sept. 11, 2007, a 71-year-old woman with cancer was transferred to Pacific Care Manor, a nursing home in Capitola. Just prior to her admission, the woman's doctor noted that her patient was lucid and responsive and "could have years to live." Most importantly, the patient had also expressed a desire to live.

Shortly after her admission, the woman began refusing food, water and any treatment. Within two days, she was screaming and combative. On day three, the nursing staff suggested that lab work be ordered to determine the cause of the resident's distress. The facility's director of nursing overruled the suggestion because "once we know what is going on then we will have to treat her." Instead, the nursing director asked the facility doctor to prescribe pain medication and a "do not resuscitate" order. The doctor complied and, despite the woman's documented opiate intolerance, he prescribed a Fentanyl patch, Haldol, morphine. He also wrote an order for "no CPR, no hospitalization." His patient cried out "you are all going to kill me" after the forcible administration of the prescribed medications. On Sept. 16, just five days after her admission, the resident died. 

All residents of nursing homes have the right to grant or withhold consent to any proposed treatment.  Residents have the right to refuse or consent to treatment and to receive all information relevant to making their treatment decisions. Providing such information is part of any responsible nursing home's assessment and care planning process. Federal regulations also reaffirm residents' rights to informed consent and to refuse treatment.

Regardless of a resident's mental capacity, no facility may administer treatment unless the resident has agreed or has been specifically adjudicated incompetent by a state court judge. Even after a court has determined that a resident is incompetent, it must make additional findings before terminating a resident's right to refuse treatment. Without a court order, the provision of any treatment over a resident's express refusal is a violation of several residents rights and is criminal battery.

Similarly, doctors cannot order "Do Not Resuscitate" orders without the written authorization of their patients. For DNR orders, designated health care agents may sign for the patient. However, doctors may not unilaterally impose DNR orders without a resident or resident representative signature.

Nursing homes throughout California are accustomed to interposing their notions of a resident's best interests over the expressed wishes of their residents. The Department of Public Health and resident advocates have been generally weak in preventing this illegal conduct. Hopefully, the tragedy in Capitola will serve as a warning to both facilities and advocates about the deadly consequences of disregarding residents' critical rights to direct their own treatment.

Anthony Chicotel is an attorney for the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform in San Francisco.

Allegations of neglect including no hot water

Residents at a nursing home in Idaho are alleging the facility is neglecting its residents and has failed to provide hot water for nine days.

A new water pump was ordered Thursday when hot water went out at the home.  Hot water was  available in the home's kitchen and laundry room. The hot water was temporarily restored Thursday, failed again Friday and was not repaired until Sunday because the replacement pump was damaged in transit.  Relatives of some patients deny hot water was available.

"My mom hasn't had a bath since she's been here," said Butch Malone, whose mother arrived at the care center Dec. 10.

The families also say the center's staff is unresponsive when patients call for help. For example, Randy Speaks' 40-year-old daughter said it has taken staff as long as an hour to respond when his daughter is in need.

During the facility's last inspection in September, state inspectors said the home was deficient in failing to properly treat or prevent bed sores, according to reports posted on the national Medicare Web site.

The inspection also found the home "failed to prepare food that is nutritional, appetizing, tasty, attractive, well-cooked and at the right temperature."

See full article here.

Nursing Homes: A Failed Experiment


Here is an interesting article about attorney Ken Connor's appearance for an advocacy group for nursing home reform.  The seminar was titled "Nursing Homes: A Failed Experiment,".  Connor's appearance was sponsored by the advocacy group Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform.

Connor said he classified nursing homes as "a failed experiment" because the current system puts the economics of the provider ahead of the life, health and safety of the residents.

"In other words, they put profit over people; they put revenue over residents," he said.

To increase profit, Connor said, staffing is cut. And some nursing homes are run by businessmen who have never been doctors or nurses and don't have any expertise in the medical field. They are, however, good at making money.

It's important for people to be educated about this issue -- to know what to do if they are confronted with a problem and know where to file a complaint. It's also good to know where to find support.

Connor urged the crowd to pay attention to signs such as pressure ulcers, infections, urine and feces-stained bed linen and foul odors. Also, the hollow eyes and parched tongues of loved ones display the lack of time devoted to them.

Connor said nursing home problems are pervasive throughout the country.   "Corral your congressmen and senators and make them understand the breadth of the problem," he said.

Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform work to change state law so criminal background checks and random drug tests are required for all nursing home employees. They are fighting to ensure there is a minimum staffing standard.

Kentucky has cited about one in four nursing homes for serious deficiencies that caused "actual harm" or "immediate jeopardy". 

Nursing home failed to notify family of death of mother

Huberto Garmon says when his mother died on July 15th no one from the Resort Nursing Home where she was staying contacted him to let him know.   “Not only did I find out that she passed away, but she passed two and a half months ago,” said Garmon.

In fact, Garmon claims staffers told him on several occasions that his 86-year-old mother, who was suffering from kidney failure, was either getting treatment at the nursing home or at Peninsula Hospital. He says he found out only this week that she had died.

“I'm thinking that she's at the nursing home,” he said. “I know they're going to call me, because if they contacted me for an authorization for an operation, they'll contact me if it happens, so we didn't know nothing until I called to say I wanted to go and visit her.”

Garmon says when he tried to get to the bottom of what happened, both the hospital and the nursing home began pointing fingers at each other.

“After experiencing what he did, my client wants to make sure no one else will experience what he did and very often that cannot be accomplished unless some appropriate action, some formal action is taken,” said his attorney Everett Hopkins.

Garmon says he also wants to retrieve his mother's body from a cemetery for unclaimed remains, and give her a proper goodbye.

When can nursing home evict a resident?

Description of Federal Requirements

The federal regulation (483.12) articulates rights that the resident has related to admission, transfer, or discharge, some of the procedures facilities must follow, and records they must keep. The definition of transfer and discharge here applies to movement to a bed outside the certified facility (including differently licensed beds in the same physical plant), but does not apply to movement to a different bed in the certified facility. (Those Intra-facility transfers are discussed under 483.10, Resident Rights.)

The rules regarding transfer or discharge (a) establish the conditions under which a resident may be transferred involuntarily, including that the facility is closing, the resident has improved so that he/she no longer needs the care, the facility is unable to provide the resident with the necessary care, the resident is a danger to self or others, and the resident has failed to pay for care or (if supported by third parties, including Medicaid) has failed to have the care paid for.

The federal rule establishes expectations for documentation regarding transfers (including the reason), and written notice to the residents of at least 30 days, unless the reason for transfer is related to urgent medical needs of the resident or health and safety of others.

 The written notice must include the reasons for the transfer/discharge, the effective date, the location of discharge or transfer, the right of appeal, and notification of how to reach the long-term care ombudsman and/or the appropriate Protection and Advocacy agency in the case of individuals with developmental disabilities or persons who are mentally ill. Further, the facility “must provide sufficient preparation and orientation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility.”


Another section (b) of this regulation refers to bed holds and the resident’s right to return to the nursing home after being discharged for hospitals or therapeutic leaves. These policies are determined in part by the State’s policy about how long payment will be made to hold a bed for a resident after discharge. In any case, the facility needs to clearly disclose to the resident and family in writing the amount of time the bed will be held, and its policies for readmission after that time expires.

Under a provision for “equal access to quality care (c) , the policies that the facility develops for transfer, discharge, and provision of all the services covered in the State Medicaid Plan must be identical for all residents regardless of the resident’s source of payment. The regulation also States that facilities are not obliged to provide any services that are not under the State plan. The facility may charge privately paying residents any amount they chose for the services included in the State plan and other services, but are subject to requirements for disclosure in the Resident Rights regulation (483.10).

The final section (d) on Admission Rights articulates prohibits any facility that accepts Medicaid or Medicare from requiring residents to waive their rights to this coverage, prohibits facilities to require guarantees of payment from a third party as a condition of income, and prohibits the facility from soliciting any gift or donation as a consideration of admission or continued stay. The section also specifically states that States “may apply stricter admissions standards under State or local law to prohibit discrimination against individuals entitled to Medicaid.
Under 483.10 (Resident Rights) some general rights are enunciate that overlap with this regulation on admission, discharge, and transfer rights, especially as regards written notice about Medicaid and Medicare coverage.

The majority of States (29--including South Carolina) do not appear to have enunciated any rights or procedures governing admission, transfer, or discharge over and above those that are established in the rather detailed Federal provisions. States may have repeated some of the Federal requirements or inserted the names of their own agencies for notification without substantially changing the Federal requirements.

The most usual State requirements entail slight additions to the timing of notice of involuntary transfers for any or for a particular reason (such as notification of intent to go out of business) or state-mandated precise wording for notice forms. Colorado provides numerous specific forms. Three States (Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska) specify at least 12-point fonts for the notices, and Indiana also indicated that bold type face be used. Indiana rules for Inter-Facility and Intra-Facility Transfers are treated together in one section of the law, though each is well-defined. For that reason, the rights for appeal of Intra-facility transfer (described under Resident Rights in general) are unusually well-developed.

The most extensive requirements are found in Illinois and in Oregon. Among their many provisions are requirements that relate to facilitating adjustment in the community or the transfer placement, and allowing for return. Illinois has sections on pre-transfer or pre-discharge counseling, trial placements in the community, and the requirement that the facility accept State relocation teams in the facility, including in those giving notice of closing and those not intending to close. Oregon regulations contain particularly elaborate discussion of how to help prepare the resident for transfer, and give the resident the ultimate right to stay if transfer would be deemed harmful. In Oregon, the facility shall not involuntarily transfer a resident for medical or welfare reasons under the various reasons outlined in its regulations if the risk of physical or emotional trauma significantly outweighs the risk to the resident and/or to other residents if no transfer were to occur, and the the facility shall not involuntarily transfer a resident for any other reasons if the transfer presents a substantial risk of morbidity or mortality to the resident.

 A section called “Considerations for Involuntary Transfer” included many resident-centered components, and safeguards. In Oregon, prior to issuing a notice for an involuntary transfer, in order to determine the appropriateness of transfer, the facility shall consider the following: (1) the availability of alternatives to transfer; (2) the resident's ties to family and community; (3) the relationships the resident has developed with other residents and facility staff; (4) the duration of the resident's stay at the facility; (5) the medical needs of the resident and the availability of medical services; (6) the age of the resident and degree of physical and cognitive impairment; (7) the availability of a receiving facility that would accept the resident and provide service consistent with the resident's need for care. (8) the consistency of the receiving facility's services with the activities and routine with which the resident is familiar, and the receiving facility's ability to provide the resident with similar access to personal items significant to the resident and enjoyed by the resident at the transferring facility; (9) the probability that the transfer would result in improved or worsened mental, physical, or social functioning, or in reduced dependency of the resident. (10) the type and amount of preparation for the move, including but not limited to: (a) solicitation of the resident's friends and/or family in preparing the resident for the move; (b) Visitation by the resident to (prior to actual transfer) or familiarity of the resident with the place to which the resident is to be transferred; and (11)on-site consultation by an individual with specific expertise in mental health services if the basis for considering transfer is behavioral, e.g., gero-psychiatric consultation. [NHPlusComments: These considerations are material seems particularly resident-centered and also contain practical ideas about how to consider whether a move would be difficult for a resident and assist him/her to make transfers positive.]

Although much of the Federal and State attention regarding discharges and transfers is directed at ensuring that residents not be inappropriately discharged, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Oregon address the right to voluntary discharge or for the patients to discharge themselves or their guardians to discharge them. Illinois specifies that such discharges must occur even if the facility has reservations about the person’s ability to manage in the community, but in those cases a referral must be made to Adult Protective Services. In Maryland, a signed consent to voluntary transfer or discharge from a resident or family member is ordinarily required. Maine specifies that residents who are candidates for home health care should receive a list of certified agencies in their area, but that the facility must disclose if it has a financial interest in any of these home health agencies.

Among the 21 States with some requirements in this area, the remaining stipulations include a wide variety of matters. Several States (Arizona, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) require that medical information be transferred to the receiving organization. California requires that the facilities develop transfer agreements with other facilities. Arkansas requires consultation with families on involuntary transfers. Wisconsin states that except in an emergency, a receiving facility, agency, or program must receive advance notice of the arrival of a resident being transferred to it. Alabama re-iterates federal policy with the addition of a requirement for resident transport during transfers or discharges. The provision states that if a resident is unable to ride in an upright position or if such resident’s condition is such that he or she needs observation or treatment by Emergency Medical Services personnel, or if the resident requires transportation on a stretcher, gurney or cot, the facility shall arrange or request transportation services only from providers who are ambulance service operators licensed by the Alabama State Board of Health. If such resident is being transported to or from a health care facility in another state, transportation services may be arranged with a transport provider licensed as an ambulance service operator in that state. For the purposes of this rule, an upright position means no more than 20 degrees from vertical. The Table below provides links to the actual provisions in the States that have State-specific requirements in this area.

Rape trial of 98 year old resident

This article is very disturbing.  I cannot believe that the nursing home did not recognize this obvious sociopath.

A Victorian nursing home employee accused of pinning down a 98-year-old dementia patient "like an animal" and raping her was just doing his job, according to his defense lawyer.   Henry Alexander, 35, of Mount Martha, is accused of sexually assaulting four women in their 80s and 90s at a nursing home on the Mornington Peninsula in November 2005.

"Mr. Alexander's care of these particular residents is based on the fact that what he did was reasonable ... and it was all to do with the proper hygienic care of residents who had become incontinent with feces and urine,'' Gipp said.

Alexander's former colleague, Anne Girvasi, who no longer works at the home, said on one occasion she saw him pin a 98-year-old woman to the bed with his legs and digitally penetrate her.

"She was pinned down like an animal,'' Girvasi said. "Henry Alexander is an animal and a rapist, okay? What he did was disgusting.''

She said she did not file an incident report about Alexander's conduct because six-month old reports would pile up in the nurses' station and no action was taken.   Friend and former colleague Janine Blythe said she tried to make an appointment with Susan Younger, the Director of Nursing, but Younger cancelled.

She said she then submitted an incident report to CEO Heila Brookes, which detailed Alexander's alleged "inappropriate and rough'' touching of an 87-year-old woman on Nov. 4, 2005.

"She just ripped it up - she said it wasn't done the way it should be.''

Blythe was fired from the nursing home for failing to immediately report the incident.

Here is the full article.

Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., is one of South Carolina’s most respected and distinguished law firms. The Poliakoff firm began nearlyMore...