Opinion ID: 2062624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Regulations and the Minnesota Statute

Text: Defendant asks us to hold that she had the authority to enforce the rights granted to Ms. Siebert by Standard: Patients' Rights, 42 C.F.R. § 405.1121(k) (1980) and Patients and Residents of Health Care Facilities; Bill of Rights, Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1980). While there may be some argument as to a guardian's authority under the federal regulations because only certain of the listed rights devolve to a guardian, there can be no argument under the statute for it provides [a]ny guardian or conservator of a patient or resident    may seek enforcement of these rights on behalf of a patient or resident. Id. The statute accords certain rights to patients and residents of nursing facilities including facilities such as St. Mary's Skilled Nursing Home, and further provides that the facility may not require a waiver of the rights as a condition of admission to the facility. The express intent of the statute is to promote the interests and well being of the patients and residents of health care facilities. Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1980). Among the rights enunciated by the statute is: (17) Every resident may associate and communicate privately with persons of his choice    unless medically contraindicated and documented by his physician in the medical record.    Minn.Stat. § 144.651(17) (1980). The state is correct in its argument that neither 42 C.F.R. 405.1121(k) (1980) nor Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1980) grant enforcement authority to a person in defendant's position. The regulations and the statute give enforcement authority to the patient or resident or, if a guardian has been appointed, to the guardian. The reference to the rights is made, however, because it reinforces defendant's claim of right as discussed below in that a resident or a resident's guardian, not the nursing home administration, [4] is given the right to determine who may associate with, i. e., visit, the resident, unless medically contraindicated and documented by the resident's physician in the medical record. There is no evidence here that the visitation by defendant was medically contraindicated in Ms. Siebert's medical record or that if such were the case, that defendant was ever informed of the fact.