South Carolina Nursing Home Blog : South Carolina Nursing Home Lawyer & Attorney : Poliakoff & Associates Law Firm : Elderly Care, Senior Care

McKnight's had an article about a decision in Colorado regarding the enforcement of an arbitration clause in a nursing home case.  The Colorado court ruled that a healthcare proxy does not have the authority to sign an arbitration agreement on behalf of a nursing home resident.  Under Colorado law, a healthcare proxy is only empowered to make medical decisions on behalf of another, including “provision, withholding, or withdrawal of any health care, medical procedure, including artificially provided nourishment and hydration, surgery, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or service to maintain, diagnose, treat, or provide for a patient's physical or mental health or personal care,” the Bureau of National Affairs reported.

In the case of Lujan v. Life Care Centers of America, Colorado, Alvin Lujan signed an arbitration agreement, waiving jury trial rights, when admitting his mother, Estella Lujan, to the Life Care Centers of America nursing home. She died three days later, and a wrongful death claim was filed against the facility. Life Care Centers argued that admission to a nursing home is a medical decision and, therefore, the Colorado law applies.  But the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the signing of an arbitration agreement does not fall under the specific definition of the authorities given to a healthcare proxy. As a result, the Lujan family had the right to sue the facility.

In October, the Nebraska Supreme Court arrived at a similar decision regarding the roll of patient surrogates
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

McKnight's had another article on the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act.  This bill would prevent nursing homes from using pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a way to take away residents' rights to a jury trial. The bill is supported by both Republicans and Democrats and should be able to pass without much difficulty. 

Sens. Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) reintroduced their measure in an effort to "restore the original intent of arbitration laws [and] ensure that families will not have to choose between quality care and forgoing their rights within the judicial system."    The version of the bill introduced in the last session of Congress was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but never came to a full floor vote. The bill does not prohibit the use of all arbitration agreements by nursing homes, only pre-dispute agreements.   Arbitration agreements could still be used after a dispute arises, though the bill would make them a voluntary matter.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Most Vulnerable Americans Protected By Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act

Bipartisan bill will ensure nursing home corporations don’t eliminate seniors’ legal rights

The most vulnerable Americans and their families will no longer be forced to give up their legal rights and sign one-sided mandatory binding arbitration clauses under new legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate.

The bipartisan Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), will prevent nursing homes from deliberately hiding clauses within the fine print of contracts that force seniors to surrender their right to trial by jury and enter an unfair and one-sided mandatory binding arbitration process. The bill was introduced in the U.S. House last week by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA).

“The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act will make sure negligent nursing home corporations can be held accountable by our most vulnerable citizens,” said American Association for Justice President Les Weisbrod. “This bill will prevent nursing home corporations from unfairly preying on seniors and stripping away their legal rights. Arbitration should only be voluntarily, not hidden away in the fine print of contracts during our seniors’ greatest time of need.”

The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009 will help people like Minnesota resident Dean Cole, who received unconscionable care from a negligent nursing corporation. Suffering from dementia, Dean needed help eating meals every day; but during his 22 day residency, Dean lost 20.6 pounds without his physician or wife ever being notified. After being admitted to the hospital, he was found to be severely dehydrated, with a water deficit near 10 liters. Dean died less than a month later. His family sought justice by bringing a suit against the nursing home for negligent care, but learned they would be forced into one-sided mandatory binding arbitration on the corporation’s own terms and denied the right to trial by jury. The case is still pending.

For more information on mandatory binding arbitration, visit: http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The American jury is at the heart of the justice system.  The right to a jury trial is a constitutional right.  But the GOP in Tennesse want to limit the amount a jury may award in cases involving the abuse and neglect of America's most vulnerable citizens.  Arbitrary caps on damages do not work.  If they want to prevent lawsuits, they should require better care including increasing staffing and training.  Advocates for the elderly told a special committee studying the effects of litigation on the nursing home industry that better care would prevent lawsuits.

The main discussion at the committe meeting was on whether caps should be placed on damages in lawsuits against nursing homes. Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey has made malpractice caps for nursing homes part of his legislative agenda for the year. The Republican said limiting damages is necessary because he believes the industry is being targeted by lawyers.

But Daniel Clayton, president of the Tennessee Association of Justice, told the committee that the focus should be on improvement of care rather than capping damages. "If care is good, lawsuits will go down," Clayton said. "If care is bad, lawsuits will go up." Last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report that ranked Tennessee's nursing homes worst in the nation and gave 30 percent of them the worst rating possible.  Why would you provide immunity to an industry that is hurting your voters and constituents?

The ratings are based on state inspections, staffing levels and quality measures, such as the percentage of residents with pressure sores, urinary tract infections and declining mobility. Each nursing home was given an overall score of one to five stars, with five stars being the best. The ratings are based on as much as three years of data, ending in November 2008.

Only Louisiana and Georgia ranked lower than Tennessee in the report, which evaluated 16,000 nursing homes nationwide.

Patrick Willard, AARP Tennessee's advocacy director, said his group is studying litigation of nursing homes and preliminary results show the state ranks below the national level when it comes to staffing at nursing homes. "If your staffing level is below the national level, you're more than likely to be sued," he said.

Committee member Charles Curtiss agreed. The Sparta Democrat said his mother has been in two nursing homes, and he noticed their staffing was not up to standard. "I'm not for saying we're going to cap liability, and then let the service be exactly as it is today," Curtiss said. "If they're going to give the operators a break, then certainly we've got to get something for those people who are in the nursing homes, and that would have to be better care."

Rep. Henry Fincher said he's against capping damages, and shows his disdain for the idea in calling it "the kill old people act." "I don't think that limiting liability is the way to make sure that people are treated better," said the Cookeville Democrat.

"If you take away people's chance to recover damages for wrong things done to them, you're protecting the wrongdoer. It turns the whole idea of responsibility on its head."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks