Source: http://nasga-stopguardianabuse.blogspot.com/2017_07_02_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-17 23:20:13
Document Index: 332936986

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2994', '§2994', '§2994', '§81', '§81', '§81']

National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse: 2017-07-02
Signed into law in 2010, the Family Health Care Decisions Act (FHCDA) (N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW §2994-d) reflected a major departure regarding the standard under which life sustaining treatment may be terminated for a mentally incompetent person. The FHCDA flipped the switch from the prior "presumption of life" to a "presumption of termination" (absent indication from the principal to the contrary), and did so especially in the context of artificial nutrition and hydration. See In re Zornow, 919 N.Y.S.2d 273, 31 Misc.3d 450 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cty. 2010).
Intending to fill a gap in New York law by establishing a decision-making process applicable for patients lacking decision-making capacity in hospitals and nursing homes who do not have advance directives, the FHCDA allows surrogate decisions regarding the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment based on a best interests standard, subject to the medical standards set forth in the statute. See N.Y. PUB. HEALTH Law §2994-d(4); see also In re Doe, 37 N.Y.S.3d 401, 53 Misc.3d 829 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2016). Guardians pursuant to Article 81 of New York's Mental Hygiene Law are given the highest priority to act as a surrogate decision maker, followed by a priority order of family members and other persons close to the patient.
The authority of a guardian of the Person under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law extends well beyond the authority to make medical decisions as granted by the FHCDA. As such, the appointment of a guardian is often warranted to ensure the complete protection of an incapacitated individual's interests. The courts generally favor the appointment of a family member as guardian, particularly with regard to personal needs. See, e.g., In re Naquan S., 767 N.Y.S.2d. 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). As guardian, a family member is in the first position of possible surrogate appointees under the FHCDA. Although one would suppose that holding the top priority as the surrogate decision-maker would expand one's powers, in some counties within the state, it has actually limited a family member's ability to make health care decisions, in particular decisions with regard to life sustaining treatment.
In practice, the FHCDA has been interpreted differently across the counties throughout the state regarding end-of-life decisions. As the FHCDA states that a guardian is authorized to make decisions regarding health care pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, some court jurisdictions have interpreted this to mean that such decisions must comply with the standards expressed under Article 81, therefore holding guardians to the common law "clear and convincing" standard while other counties apply the statutory, less restrictive "best interests" and medical standards set forth in the FHCDA. See N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW §2994-d(1)(a).
With the passage of the FHCDA, §81.29 of the Mental Hygiene Law was repealed and the "personal needs" provisions in §81.22 was amended. See FHCDA, A. 7729-D, 2009-2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2009); N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW §§81.22, 81.29. Pursuant to amended section 81.22, for decisions in hospitals and residential health care facilities, the court may grant to the guardian the power to act as the patient's surrogate pursuant and subject to the FHCDA. Based on the inclusion of the changes to the guardianship statutes with the passage of the FHCDA, it would appear that the "clear and convincing" standard no longer applies to personal needs decisions.
However, present day experiences with guardianship courts across the state of New York reveal that the counties are interpreting these rules in different ways. Some counties, for example, include a limitation on decisions regarding the withholding of life-sustaining measures. For example, the language included in one such county's guardianship order states that the guardian may "consent to or refuse generally accepted routine or major medical or dental treatment on behalf of [the incapacitated person], except for the power to consent or authorize, in the absence of further order of the Court, withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment or to the implementation of either a Do-Not-Resuscitate or Do-Not-Intubate Order." Arguably, this goes against the FHCDA, which states that there is a presumption in favor of termination unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Consider this fact pattern: Mrs. Crake's husband was named the guardian of her personal needs and property management. However, the court limited Mr. Crake's powers regarding the withholding of life-sustaining treatment, requiring further Court order in such event. Mrs. Crake was a woman in her sixties diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease who exhibited end-stage dementia. Mrs. Crake required increased levels of residential care as her condition was quickly deteriorating and she required frequent hospitalizations. Mr. Crake, as Mrs. Crake's husband and personal needs guardian, was asked by both hospital staff and nursing home staff to complete a MOLST (Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) form on her behalf in the event of an emergency. However, Mr. Crake did not have authority to execute a MOLST because of the provision in the guardianship order limiting his decision-making authority regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In contrast, had Mr. Crake not been appointed guardian for his wife, as her husband and the second surrogate decision-maker under the FHCDA, he would have had unquestioned authority to execute the MOLST form on her behalf. Although Mr. Crake sought the guardianship to have the authority to assist his incapacitated wife in matters that exceeded her medical needs, the guardianship order actually limited his powers in regard to medical decisions. As a result, Mrs. Crake was intubated and subject to care that her family believes she would have rejected based on her condition, even though all of Mrs. Crake's family members were in agreement with Mr. Crake that their wife/mother/sister would not want life-sustaining measures to be undertaken.
This situation is exactly what the legislature set out to prevent with the enactment of the FHCDA. The legislature recognized that these personal decisions are best left to the families of incapacitated individuals. According to the legislature, the trial court "must protect itself from inappropriate involvement in a life-sustaining medical treatment case and should decline jurisdiction if there is no justifiable controversy." See FHCDA, A. 7729-D, 2009-2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2009) (citing Memorandum in Support of Legislation).
Even though Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law specifies that personal needs decisions are subject to the standards of the FHCDA, Mrs. Crake's case makes evident the conflict of laws. The legislature intended that the provisions of the FHCDA provide "responsible policies" for medical decisions for incompetent individuals as well as a process to review cases and resolve disputes within health care facilities, thereby eliminating the reliance on the courts except in situations of last resort. The Department of Health issued regulations that would further ensure that the standards of the FHCDA are followed in health care facilities such as nursing homes. Furthermore, the MOLST form was updated in June 2010 to align with the standards of the FHCDA and, therefore, the standards for a health care surrogate to complete a MOLST form are the same standards set forth in the FHCDA. As such, based on the provision of the FHCDA that subjects personal needs decisions made by guardians to the FHCDA, it is clear that the FHCDA has provided the necessary safeguards and procedures to ensure that decisions regarding life sustaining treatment are properly made at health care facilities without the intervention of the courts.
As evidenced by the enactment of statutes such as the Family Health Care Decisions Act and the guardianship statutes, New York has taken extensive measures to ensure that individuals' wishes are appropriately carried out when they are no longer able to make decisions on their own behalf. To ensure that incapacitated individuals are extended the protections that the legislature recognized were necessary, it is essential that the courts be provided further guidance to ensure these standards are uniformly applied across the state.
Labels: conflict of laws, end-of-life decisions, incapacitated adults, New York
Sandra Derosa and Vivian Sarlo
When Flora Derosa was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, she knew she had to plan for her long-term care. She met with a lawyer and established a plan that gave power of attorney to two of her daughters should she become incapacitated.
She is now 90, and her disease is advanced. She is living in the Enhanced Life Unit at Hillsborough County Nursing Home in Goffstown against her family's wishes and her legal directives.
Daughter Sandra Derosa said the family can do nothing about it. She said Elliot Hospital "stole" her power of attorney after her mother was locked in its geropsychiatric unit in Manchester for over 560 days.
Elliot officials refused to comment, but Derosa and her sister Vivian Sarlo provided correspondence between the two parties showing the case stemmed from a dispute over Flora's medications. The Milford family contends that when they stood up for their mother, the hospital used intimidation to make them back down, including an unsupported abuse complaint filed against Derosa and Sarlo that banned them from visiting her mother for two months.
"We were being advocates. That's all. We were being advocates for our mother," Sarlo said. "Isn't that what you are supposed to do?"
The daughters never imagined a hospital would fight a dying woman's directives.
"Who knew they could trump that?" Derosa said.
Flora's family has appealed the court decision, but aren't hopeful. They want others to know their story to protect themselves from "granny-snatching" - a term that has come to describe a hospital taking guardianship of an elder despite them taking legal steps to ensure their final wishes are protected.
Elaine Renoire of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse said hospitals fighting families for guardianship over treatment disputes happens "far too often" in the United States, but is not widely reported, especially when the patient is elderly.
Sarlo owns a real estate agency, and Derosa is a respiratory therapist at a sleep lab near Boston. For years, Flora would spend half the week at Sarlo's home and the other half at Derosa's so the daughters could still work while honoring Flora's wishes to live at home.
In 2014, it got to be too much. Flora refused to get back into Derosa's car after a trip to the grocery store, was taken by ambulance to Elliot Hospital and eventually sent to Hillsborough County Nursing Home. Flora's agitation grew worse in the nursing home and she was eventually brought to the Elliot geropsychiatric unit in October 2015.
According to the paperwork provided by the family, the goal was to get Flora calmer through medication so she could return to a nursing home.
The daughters didn't disagree with the goals, but found the medications adversely affected their mother's health. They showed photos of Flora and her 70-pound weight gain with ankles so swollen her compression socks were cutting into her skin. Sarlo said the drugs were the equivalent of "chemical restraints" to "make the nurses' jobs easier."
Derosa put her concerns in emails to doctors and asked for her mother to be put on medications that had calmed her in the past because "I know my mother. I know what works."
Renoire said that's where they went wrong. She said when going against a doctor's orders "you stand a chance to lose everything and that's the sad part."
"I think a lot of it, and this is my own personal opinion, if you have a medical background, that offends the hospital because they are supposed to be all-knowing," Renoire said. "If a family complains too much, they have had it with you."
The hospital's case
Derosa ordered a stop to the antipsychotics in September 2016, and the hospital filed a complaint with the state Bureau of Elder Abuse that was immediately dismissed. A few weeks later, Sarlo was banned from visiting her mother, which is documented in correspondence between the family and the hospital.
Derosa said she backed off and "had nothing to do with medication" until January 2017, when they found out Flora was being given morphine several times a day.
"That's what they do when you're dying," Sarlo said. "It wasn't for pain. It was to keep her sedated and keep her chemically restrained."
Derosa ordered it stopped. The hospital responded by filing the court action to have Derosa's power of attorney revoked. The family was told through written correspondence that Hillsborough County Nursing Home would only take Flora back "if Sandra is not POA (power of attorney)."
The family said the reason the nursing home wouldn't take her back is because Elliot staffers "lied" about their mother's agitation in records to justify the use of heavy drugs. They pointed to an example of where the hospital recorded Flora as "ramming the walls with her walker." Sarlo said her mother couldn't walk because of the weight gain and neuropathy in her feet.
"No one wanted her then," Derosa said.
Judge Patricia Quigley sided with the hospital, removing Derosa's power of attorney and appointing a guardian. The details of her decision are not public record.
"We lost our mother that day. It's like my mother died," Derosa said. "We'd do everything for my mother because she would do anything for us. Now we can't."
State laws define when guardians are to be appointed. The purpose of the law is "to "encourage the development of maximum self-reliance in the individual; to encourage rehabilitative care, rather than custodial care for incapacitated individuals; and to impose protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the individual's functional limitations."
In 2016, the state had 917 appointed guardians overseeing incapacitated adults, but the state Justice Department would not say how many of those involved elderly patients. It would not say how many of those cases involved a hospital making the petition.
According to state law, the guardian only has to see Flora once a month and file an annual report. Flora's guardian is paid for with what's left of her estate - her dead husband's Social Security check.
"The spirit of this law is not to be used for this reason," Sarlo said.
Renoire's group works to raise awareness about the issues of guardianship and is involved in legislation aimed at protecting families like Flora's. She said the group has been unsuccessful in getting laws passed to strengthen power of attorney rules.
"The laws around powers of attorney need revamping, and people need to be aware of how to do a good one," she said. "We're not lawyers, but we need to be like ones."
According to Renoire, Flora made a mistake when she started her planning by giving power of attorney to only to two people.
One was Derosa and the other was her daughter Dolores, who died of brain cancer two years ago.
Renoire said a person should name at least four or five people in their directives. She explained that if one can't serve, another can take over, making it harder for a hospital to seek guardianship.
But Renoire warns "nothing is ever full-proof." She also said her group has found that judges often side with hospitals over family.
"There is a propensity for a judge to think that the family is bad, and sometimes they are," she said.
Sarlo and Derosa said the court case was a "disaster" for them. They had difficulty finding an attorney. When they got to court, their lawyer was unaware it was a hearing where both sides would present their case and never filed an appearance to represent them. They said the hearing went for two hours but they had only 10 minutes to present their case, and Derosa was the only one allowed to testify despite a room full of family members there to support Flora.
"I've talked to hundreds of people over the years, and I have yet to find one that has had a lawyer that didn't make a fatal mistake," Renoire said. "You have to guide them. You have to do the work yourself."
If a guardian is appointed, Renoire tells families to "pick their battles," correspond only in writing, ask for a response and try to be professional. She said this is the hardest part for families because they are emotional and concerned for their loved ones.
"Give an Academy Award-winning performance, and by that I mean, bite your tongue," she said. "Treat them nice so they treat you nice."
Susanna Fier, Elliot vice president of public affairs and marketing, issued a statement in support of the psychiatric unit, but would not talk about Flora's case.
"We are the only provider in Manchester offering any inpatient beds to this population of patients in need of care," she wrote. "Importantly, in the state of New Hampshire, there are very few hospitals offering inpatient geriatric psychiatric beds, Elliot Hospital being among those few organizations who have remained true to serving community need, including the growing needs of the mental health population."
The hospital moved Flora back to Hillsborough County Nursing Home two weeks ago. Two days later, she was back in the emergency room after falling out of bed and breaking two ribs, her daughters said. She is now back at the nursing home.
The daughters said they are working with the guardian and hoping she will allow them to bring Flora home when her dying hours are near. The guardian did not respond for comment.
No date has been set for the family's appeal. Renoire said such appeals "are rarely successful."
"Remember, we're talking about old folks, and there is never a win," Renoire said. "I usually say 'Save your money.'"
Labels: Alzheimer's, court battle, granny-snatching, Guardianship, Inc, NASGA, National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, New Hampshire, Nursing Home
Housing Authority coordinator charged with swindling elderly man
A woman who coordinates senior services for the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority was indicted Wednesday on charges that she and her husband swindled more than $100,000 out of an elderly man they befriended at a karaoke bar.
Labels: accused exploitation of elderly person, Alleged Swindle, alleged theft, housing authority coordinator charged, indicted, Nevada, swindling elderly
Goldsboro woman accused in elderly exploitation also facing church check fraud charges
GOLDSBORO, NC (WITN)- A woman facing sheriff's office charges for allegedly exploiting her 86-year-old grandmother is now accused of check fraud in connection to a church.
Goldsboro Police say back on April 17th they received a report from the Wayne County Sheriff's Office that the Shady Grove Missionary Baptist Church in Mount Olive was the victim of check fraud.
Police say counterfeit checks were manufactured, uttered, and cashed on the church's bank account at a financial institution within the Goldsboro city limits.
Warrants were secured on Tiffany Anstey, 33, and Adrian Holbrook, 26, both of Goldsboro.
Anstey was charged with uttering forged instrument, obtaining property by false pretense, and attempted obtaining of property by false pretense. She was given a $5,000 secured bond and has a first court appearance scheduled for Friday.
Holbrook is still at large.
Labels: accused of elderly exploitation, church check fraud charges, North Carolina
Attorney disbarred for allegedly stealing from minor's bank account
NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) - An attorney with a troubled history has now had his law license taken away.
The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility has disbarred Thomas H. McKinnie Jr.
The board said he stole nearly $200,000 from a child's trust fund.
McKinnie once had law practices in Williamson, Rutherford and Davidson counties, and gave legal advice on his own YouTube channel.
But one family who trusted McKinnie with their estate planning didn't fare so well.
According to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, in 2012, McKinnie set up a bank account for the estate of Dorothy Hunt of Franklin.
Over a two-year-period, the board found, McKinnie emptied the account. The board said McKinnie "wrote checks to himself from the trust account in the total amount of $196,459."
The account had been set up for a relative named Carrie Smithson. She was just a child at the time.
The money was supposed to help pay for her education, but when it came time to pay her tuition bill, there was no money left and she had to withdraw from school.
The board took away McKinnie's law license on June 30, saying the "brazen theft demonstrates a dishonest and selfish motive."
They took the strongest possible action – disbarment.
They cited McKinnie's prior problems. He's had his law license suspended three times since 2011 – twice for financial irregularities involving client's money.
In 2011, McKinnie was suspended for two years for improperly moving trust fund money to his own account.
In 2013, he was suspended again for two years for trust fund irregularities.
In 2015, McKinnie was once again suspended, this time for a year, for misleading a client.
Channel 4 was unable to reach McKinnie; his law office phone number is disconnected.
Labels: allegedly stole from minor, attorney disbarred, Tennessee, Trust Fund
Here’s what happened with June. June’s niece, who was her health care representative, died unexpectedly. June lived in a memory care facility, had no other family, and now had no one who could be her voice and advocate for her health care needs. It was too late for her to fill out a new advance directive (AD), as she no longer had the cognitive capacity to understand this document.
What needed to occur was that someone had to be appointed as her legal guardian, and she would then be a “protected person.” Guardianship is a legal relationship, designed to protect incapacitated individuals and promote their well-being.
A guardian undertakes serious duties and responsibilities that are required by the laws of Oregon.
Chapter 125 of the Oregon Revised Statutes governs guardianships and outlines those responsibilities (www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors125.html). A guardian must:
Here are some additional details of how guardianship works, and what guardians are permitted to do and expected to address. A guardian is appointed when a petition is filed, a court hearing is held, and the court determines, based on the evidence presented, that the individual is incapacitated according to the law of that state, and guardianship is appropriate. The guardian is appointed by a circuit court judge to manage the affairs of the protected person who is too incapacitated to make decisions on their own. The guardian makes decisions about personal health, programs, medical care, residence and release of confidential information. A guardian can also arrange for the protected person’s care and maintenance, training and education, and advance funeral and burial needs.
Labels: aging, guardianships, Oregon
Affectionate insight into being old today. Source: Golden Oldies
Labels: Documentary, Inspiration, International, Isolation, Poverty
General Assembly passes Kennedy bill protecting adults under a guardianship
PROVIDENCE — The General Assembly passed legislation introduced by Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy (D-Dist. 38, Hopkinton, Westerly) and Sen. Frank S. Lombardi (D-Dist. 26, Cranston) Wednesday that would secure the rights of adults who are under a limited guardianship on June 29.
The bill would provide those under limited guardianship, guardianship and conservatorship with necessary rights designed to protect them from mental, physical and financial abuse by their guardians and conservators.
“Adults who are the wards of limited guardians sometimes have no recourse when they become the victims of abuse, whether that abuse be physical, emotional or financial,” Kennedy said. “This legislation spells out the rights of those wards and prohibits guardians from treading on those rights.”
Catherine Falk, the daughter of the late Peter Falk, best known for portraying Detective Columbo on television, is a national activist for guardianship reform and elder abuse awareness. She appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on behalf of the legislation.
“It has become a common problem,” Lombardi said. “Some adult guardians will isolate those they’re supposed to protect in order to retaliate against families who complain. This legislation would protect adults who may be unable to express their preferences due to physical or mental condition. In that case, consent would be presumed based upon the protected person’s proven relationship history with the person seeking visitation.”
— Legislative Press and Public Information Bureau
Labels: Catherine Falk, Catherine Falk Organization, Falk/NASGA, Kennedy bill, protecting adults under guardianship, Rhode Island
Indiana Supreme Court gets additional funding for WINGS efforts
The Indiana Supreme Court is receiving another award from the American Bar Association to help expand its adult guardianship reform efforts and start a pilot project in Wayne County.
This is a continuation of an initiative that started about two years ago. In 2015, the Indiana Adult Guardianship State Task Force became a Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS) after a grant of up to $7,000.
In the recent round of funding just announced, a total of eight states are being awarded WINGS grants and technical assistance for their courts. The awards, which are given by the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, will go to support multidisciplinary efforts that advance guardianship reform, address elder abuse and promote less restrictive decision-making options.
Indiana is one of three states with existing WINGS programs who will be getting $30,000 each as a “Focus WINGS” grant to enhance and expand its stakeholder group. The Indiana Supreme Court intends to use the funds to create a judicial reform project in Wayne County with a focus on the use of a least restrictive alternative to adult guardianships.
“State WINGS have real potential to spark the kinds of lasting changes needed in guardianship and to address abuse as well as to jumpstart use of less restrictive options that give people more choice and self-determination in their lives,” said Patricia Banks, a Cook County, Illinois judge and chair of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging.
Labels: American Bar Association, Award, Indiana Adult Guardianship State Task Force, Indiana Supreme Court, WINGS, Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders
State, former elder care advocate reach settlement
A former state official, who was fired for allegedly unlawfully releasing records of boarding home conditions to a newspaper, has reached an out-of-court settlement with the administration of Gov. Susana Martinez. Terms of the deal weren’t immediately disclosed.
A few months prior to her firing, Everhart had provided records of boarding home conditions to the Albuquerque Journal in response to a public-records request.
The Journal later published a series of stories on substandard conditions of boarding homes in Las Vegas, N.M. The homes, which are largely unregulated, serve mentally ill patients released from the state psychiatric hospital in Las Vegas.
Everhart’s lawsuit said she was legally authorized to provide the records and that the allegation she did so unlawfully was a pretext for the Department of Aging and Long-Term Services to finally carry out its plan to get rid of Everhart, who had served more than a decade as the state long-term care ombudsman.
The lawsuit alleged that department managers targeted and harassed Everhart and illegally terminated her because of her advocacy on behalf of boarding home residents, her request that the agency do more to protect the elderly from financial exploitation, her attempts to combat Medicaid fraud by the department, and her proposal that the ombudsman office be separated from the Department of Aging and Long-Term Services.
Everhart, in an interview Monday, said she was satisfied with the settlement but couldn’t disclose details for six months because of a confidentiality agreement.
Generally, under state law, settlements made by the state Risk Management Division don’t become public record for six months after they are entered.
Linda Hemphill, an attorney for Everhart, said she and co-counsel Diane Garrity were “extremely pleased” with the settlement. “Unfortunately, we are prohibited by statute from sharing the details at this time,” Hemphill said.
A spokesman for the Department of Aging and Long-Term Services didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Attorneys for the department and Everhart filed an agreement June 15 in state District Court in Santa Fe to have Everhart’s case dismissed.
Employees in the ombudsman office make regular visits to long-term care facilities to investigate complaints, help resolve resident concerns and ensure quality care.
The U.S. Older Americans Act outlaws “willful interference” in the duties of long-term care ombudsmen, members of a nationwide network of federally funded advocates for residents of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.
In June 2015, Everhart complained to the federal government that the Department of Aging and Long-Term Services was interfering with her responsibilities, according to a document filed by Everhart’s attorneys in the lawsuit.
Shortly after she complained, the document says, the department sought outside legal advice on how to remove Everhart.
An attorney advised the department in September 2015 that the removal would likely run afoul of federal law and be retaliatory toward Everhart, the document says.
The Department of Aging and Long-Term Services has said the legal advice was sought because the agency was trying to determine whether it could make the ombudsman job exempt from the state’s merit-based civil service system. Everhart was a classified employee, earning about $81,000 a year.
In agencies under the control of the governor, like the Department of Aging and Long-Term Services, exempt employees serve at the will of the state’s chief executive.
The department said Everhart was doing a “great job” until she broke the law by releasing the boarding home records to the Journal.
All ombudsman records pertaining to clients, patients and residents are confidential and don’t have to be disclosed under the Inspection of Public Records Act. However, state regulations require that the ombudsman make a reasonable effort to grant a records request when it is possible to do so without revealing client identifying information.
Everhart redacted names of boarding home residents from the documents provided to the Journal, but the department has said the reports “imply the identities of complainants and residents, and include identifying information such as place of residence, and in some instances, age and circumstances of boarding.”
Labels: chief advocate for residents of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, Department of Aging and Long-Term Services, New Mexico, Settlement
Bellflower nursing facility fined $100K by state health department
LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- A skilled nursing facility in Bellflower was fined $100,000 Tuesday by the California Department of Public Health because the facility failed to provide proper care to a patient, which led to his death in December.
Woodruff Convalescent Center received the severe penalty because the department said it found deficiencies and that it failed to adhere to state and federal laws and regulations that nursing homes must follow.
On Jan. 4, the center received an unannounced visit from the department over complaints from a resident who fell several times, according to a department report.
The resident, an 82-year-old blind man with dementia who was taking blood thinner medication, lived at the facility for nine weeks.
According to the department report, the resident fell five times within the nine weeks he was there. One of those falls resulted in him suffering a head injury.
The facility said restlessness and anxiousness were contributing factors in the falls, according to the report. In an effort to keep the man from falling, he was given a non-self-release seatbelt while he was in his wheelchair instead of a self-release belt as ordered by his doctor.
The report said the man became agitated by the restraint and nothing was done to evaluate and revise his care.
In early November, the man fell for the fifth time and suffered a cut to his forehead. A licensed nurse could not stop the bleeding and called 911. He was taken to a hospital and had to undergo surgery to stop a hemorrhage on the surface of his brain, according to the report.
The man was also placed on a feeding tube. He was taken to another nursing facility for hospice care in late November and died on Dec. 4.
The department said the facility failed to provide the necessary care and attention the resident needed, It said he was not properly supervised, did not receive neurological checks after each fall, did not receive any assessments when he received his safety belt, staff failed to monitor his behavior and safety with the restraint and failed to assess his care plan after each fall, among other violations.
Woodruff Convalescent Center responded to the report and said it would take steps to fix the issues. The full report, along with the center's response and plan of action, can be viewed by clicking here and reading the March 30, 2017, assessment.
Labels: California, death of resident, fined, skilled nursing facility
Labels: California, Casey Kasem, Celebrity, Isolation, lawsuit
Recognizing the signs of abuse or exploitation is hard, especially when the person you’re concerned about is a senior citizen in your community. Do you have an elderly relative, friend, neighbor or even customer that you fear is being abused or exploited? Maybe you have just noticed some changes in an elder’s routine or behavior that seem unusual or concerning, but aren’t sure what to do.
In any situation where you suspect someone may need help or be unsafe, it’s important to trust your instincts, but there are some warnings signs of abuse you can look for specifically if you are worried about an elder.
For instance, elders suffering from abuse or exploitation from a caregiver (which could include a spouse, adult child or grandchild, or a paid attendant) may suddenly no longer have access to their own debit or credit cards, checkbooks or bank accounts. They might suffer a decline in health if their abuser is withholding or neglecting medications, or other health treatments. A senior in this situation may also begin to appear malnourished or rapidly lose weight if food is being withheld or limited as a tactic of abuse or through neglect.
Something important to keep in mind is that seniors are still vulnerable to forms of abuse such as domestic violence from an intimate partner or sexual assault or abuse from a spouse, caregiver, acquaintance or even a stranger. Elderly people may be reluctant to discuss experiencing domestic violence or sexual assault, fearing retaliatory violence from their abuser, or because they feel shame or helplessness. If you notice that an elder you know has unexplained or unusual injuries, reports being name called or otherwise verbally harassed, cannot make decisions or travel anywhere without their partner, these could be signs they are experiencing or have experienced one or more of these forms of abuse.
Elders are also vulnerable to certain forms of exploitation typically perpetrated by strangers – such as email or phone scams. If you know a senior citizen who describes receiving suspicious messages, such as emails asking for passwords, banking information, or threatening legal action; or phone calls from people claiming to know the elder asking for money, trying to sell products or services, it is important to be skeptical and work with the senior on deciphering legitimate messages and offers from scams and phishing attempts.
Most importantly, if you are worried for an elder you know and recognize any one or more of these warning signs, you can reach out to many agencies and services to receive help. Many law enforcement agencies, including the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Farmington Police Department and Wilton Police Department will do elder checks if they are contacted by someone concerned for an elder in their area. Additionally, agencies like Seniors Plus offer assistance with education around scams, and have programs like Meals on Wheels and the Around Town Café voucher system to make sure elderly people receive the nutrition they need.
Safe Voices and SAPARS also offer services specific to elderly clients. SAPARS offers drop-in advocacy to elders in Rangeley at the Rangeley Townhouse Apartments and in Philips at Sadagee Apartments, and Safe Voices also has specific emergency shelter options for elderly victims of domestic violence at our Martha’s Too apartment in Androscoggin County.
Elders and their caregivers should definitely check out the Wilton Senior Resource Fair at the Wilton Public Safety Building on Thursday, June 22, from 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. Many local service providers will be in attendance, as well as representatives from the offices of senators Angus King and Susan Collins, and guest speakers will present on legal aid options for senior citizens and consumer protection laws in Maine.
FMI about the Safe Voices services mentioned, please contact Hillary Hooke at hhooke@safevoices.org or by calling 1-800-559-2927. FMI about any of the Seniors Plus services mentioned, please call 1-800-427-1241. FMI about any of the SAPARS services mentioned, or with questions about the Wilton Senior Resource Fair, please contact Danielle at 778-9522.
Labels: Maine, signs of elder abuse