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

Chico enterprise Record had a tragic story about a nursing home preventing a mother from seeing her disabled daughter.  This is clearly in violation of the Resident's rights and should not be tolerated.  Gladys McManaman says she's miserable because a nursing home has limited the time she can visit her disabled daughter.  Gladys said the nursing home's administration will only let her visit Patricia between 9 a.m. and noon and only on weekdays.

There are no exceptions, she said. She couldn't visit on Mother's Day, Easter or her daughter's birthday.  And if she stays a bit longer than the three hours she's allowed, a staff member will tell her sharply, "It's four minutes past noon — you have to go!" she said. "It's hateful."

The facility's administration is retaliating against McManaman for filing complaints about the place.  McManaman said she's lodged complaints with the state Department of Public Health about Patricia's care.  She said Patricia has had many falls and has often been neglected by the staff.   Also, the facility has not responded when her daughter has needed urgent medical care, she said.   McManaman said Patricia was born with severe disabilities.

She admits she's gotten mad at times when Patricia was neglected or given improper care at the nursing home but what mother wouldn't get mad when the facility is neglecting your child.

 "She knows me, she responds to me," McManaman said. "I would think more than anyone, they would welcome my being there so I could alert them to what her needs are."  The nursing home  prohibits her from doing just about anything for her daughter. She can't even comb Patricia's hair without worrying a staff member might come in and reprimand her.

The only thing she's allowed to do is her daughter's laundry — something the facility is happy to have her do.  McManaman recently filed a lawsuit against Riverside, hoping to win more visiting time, but she said she is frustrated at how long that is taking.

What Riverside is doing is clearly illegal, but it's done by nursing homes quite often, said Pat McGinnis, director of the San Francisco-based California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform.

McGinnis said patients' families have the right to visit whenever they want, although they don't always realize this.

McManaman said she's not in good health and, at her age, wonders how long she'll live and what will become of her daughter if she should die.

"In the last years of my life, I sure didn't expect this," she said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dave Johnson wrote on the Huffington Post on June 17, 2008 the following article about how arbitration screws consumers and victims of corporate malfeasance.

Does your credit card or bank loan agreement have an "arbitration clause?" More and more consumer-oriented contracts and "agreements" have clauses specifying that disputes must go to arbitration rather than our civil justice system. The justification for this is that arbitration saves the time and expense of working within our legal system. But here's the thing: the corporations choose the arbitrators and every arbitrator knows they will never, ever, ever, ever (ever) get another job if they rule against the corporations. Never.  And guess what: 98.8% of arbitrations end up in favor of the corporations. This is not a surprise.

The Progressive States Network's newsletter has a story about this today, Arbitration:"Set up to squeeze small sums of money out of desperately poor people".

The headline above is a quote from former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely, describing what his role was as an arbitrator at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), a for-profit company hired to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses for credit card consumer loans. "NAF is nothing more than an arm of the collection industry hiding behind a veneer of impartiality," says Richard Neely.

In a devastating expose by BusinessWeek, Neely and other former arbitrators describe an arbitration system stacked completely against consumers -- a system where creditors win 99.8% of all disputes involving companies ranging from Bank of America to Sears to Citgroup. Arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of credit card offers means consumers lose the right to have disputes decided in an independent court and instead are forced into corporation-selected arbitration firms.

The BusinessWeek story mentioned in the Progressive States Network story is titled, Banks vs. Consumers (Guess Who Wins).

This story about credit card companies taking unfair advantage of consumers is one more attack on citizen rights to access our own legal system (one more of so many attacks). Think about what is happening here. First the big corporations fought against "regulations" which are the rules that We, the People set up requiring safe workplaces or environmental standards, or products that do not injure people, etc. Then when fewer regulations of course resulted in worker or consumer injuries or toxic spills or other harms the inured parties filed more lawsuits asking the companies to make good. So in response to these lawsuits the corporate-financed "tort reform" movement came along, working to limit the ability of citizens to be compensated for the results of corporate bad behavior. The result has been fewer regulations preventing harms and more restrictions on citizen access to courts where we can seek damages after we are harmed.

I didn't even bring up the corporate-conservative movement efforts to install their own business-friendly judges in the courts.

But even those erosions of our access to justice has not been enough for the greedy corporations. Now there is arbitration: clauses that show up in contracts and agreements that remove your ability to take a dispute to the courts at all! And the judges in these courts are dependent on the corporations for their livelihood!

Deregulation, tort reform and now arbitration that is rigged against the consumer. Drip, drip, drip. One after another the big corporations are eroding the rights of citizens.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When two residents at a nursing home in Santa Cruz got eviction notices last March, they decided to fight them. They called Linda Robinson of Advocacy Inc., a Santa Cruz nonprofit, to help them file appeals with the state Department of Health Services. A little more than a year later, the issue is being resolved according to an April 11 memo signed by Kathleen Billingsley, deputy director of the state health department.

The April 11 memo affects nearly 900 nursing home patients in Santa Cruz County as well as 1,400 nursing homes statewide with more than 133,000 beds.

"In a year, dozens, maybe hundreds, of [eviction] notices are sent," Connors said. "They get issued way too often in my experience. Patients have the right to be protected from arbitrary transfers"

Billingsley's April 11 memo to district managers covered policy and procedures for appealing eviction notices. It also said staff must receive training to make sure policy and procedures are followed.

Last year, a lawsuit was filed, complaining about a backlog of nursing-home complaints. This month, a state auditor, reporting on 17,000 complaints filed over two years, said the department had not completed about 60 percent of its investigations in a timely fashion.

See article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks