Another disturbing nursing home story, in addition the Florida IRMA SNF deaths – need for ERM, leadership, transparency, reporting, and follow-up

I have also posted this discussion at http://lawriskgov.com

Below, at the bottom of this blog, I have pasted a video at a nursing home that I came across on Yahoo. First some disclaimers – by now we should all be aware that watching snippets or portions of a video does not tell the whole story, knowing the whole story could present a different situation, we don’t know all that was said or that occurred, and, of course, I have no personal knowledge of these events, but am simply passing this along.

That having been said, the video and information presented are disturbing.

At her deposition the supervising nurse testified that what occurred is different than what the video shows, and acknowledges or admits this, and she admits that the nurses or nursing assistants on scene acted wrongfully and should have been fired if the truth had been known.

If not for the video the truth would not have come to light.

An issue arose whether it was legal to install a secret video recording device in the resident’s room. It is my understanding that a nursing home resident is a resident, not a patient, and that the nursing home, and their particular room is their home.

The lawyer mentions that he cannot say anything about the settlement agreement with the nursing home. In California, except in limited circumstances, Code of Civil Procedure §2017.310 makes a confidential settlement agreement unlawful if the factual foundation presents a case of elder or dependent adult abuse.

California also has a criminal elder abuse statute at Penal Code §368. I’m not saying that the acts in the video were criminal – based on what is being shown, in a court of law more likely the acts would be considered medical malpractice in nature, but could still be civil elder abuse.

The nursing home would raise a whole host of defenses to liability, including, for example, possibly, that the plaintiffs or prosecution cannot show with evidence that the actions of the nursing home actually caused the resident’s death. But there also could be issues about burden of proof, and it is possible that the burden of showing no wrongful conduct could be shifted to the defendant nursing home.

We could go on and on with this. There is a lot more that I would like to know, including, for example, about the policies and procedures of the nursing home at the time of the incident, and about the investigation that the nursing home did at the time of the incident and whether that investigation, if any was done, was sufficient and performed appropriately and in good faith?

I would also like to know about the “new management” of the nursing home, and about current policies and procedures, and whether the events of this occurrence were presented to the public or kept secret by the state nursing home regulatory authorities.

These stories and what occurs later in time get buried by the now constant 24 hour news and social media cycle – do you remember the hurricane IRMA story about the 8 nursing home residents who died because the air conditioning went out, but then weren’t transferred by the nursing home to a safe facility (such as, for example, possibly the nearby hospital) – well . . . what has happened since that time in the investigation, and so that something like that will not occur again?

That’s all for now. I’m David Tate. I’m a California litigation attorney. I also handle governance and risk management. You need to consult with an attorney or appropriate professional about your situation. This blog post and/or video or audio is not an advertisement or solicitation for services inside or outside of California. Thanks for listening or reading.

Here is the link to the nursing home video,

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/disturbing-video-shows-dying-wwii-vet-neglected-nursing-home-193149764.html

David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com

See also my blogs at http://lawriskgov.com and at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation because this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Lender/Debtor
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, and Contentious Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, Etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 10222017 David W. Tate, Esq. jpg

 

 

Advertisements

A party filing a petition in probate to enforce a no contest clause triggers the anti-SLAPP statute

David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, California (Silicon Valley/Menlo Park Office, with additional offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange County), http://rroyselaw.com/

The following is a brief discussion about a new California case in which the court held that a party filing a petition in probate to enforce a no contest clause triggers the anti-SLAPP statute. If you have never been involved in the anti-SLAPP statute, it is a big deal. The case is Urick v. Urick, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B278257 (October 5, 2017).

Summary. Filing a petition for instructions in probate, claiming that a trustee or beneficiary had triggered a no contest clause by filing her prior petition to reform or modify a trust, is a claim that triggers prong one of the California anti-SLAPP statute Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, which means that the party seeking to claim and enforce that the no contest clause was triggered must be prepared to satisfy prong two of the anti-SLAPP statute which requires him to sufficiently establish a reasonable possibility of prevailing on the claim that the no contest clause was triggered and violated.

Takeaway. If you bring a claim to enforce a no contest clause based on an opposing party’s prior petition filed in probate, you must be prepared at the time of your filing to establish to the court, based on evidence and declarations, that you have a reasonable possibility of prevailing on your claim that the other party had triggered and violated the no contest clause.

Urick is also interesting for the court’s discussion whether the previously filed petition to reform or modify the trust triggered the no contest clause, including the discussion whether that previously filed petition was filed by the petitioner as a beneficiary of the trust or as the trustee of the trust and whether there was really a distinction that mattered under the facts of the case.

Other thoughts about the anti-SLAPP statute. I have been involved in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16 motions. It is my opinion that it is a deeply flawed statute except possibly in really obvious and clear situations and in those cases the party who has those defenses has other remedies such as a demurrer, motion to strike, or motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The anti-SLAPP statute should be revoked or very significantly amended and limited. To add further injury, the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all discovery unless a motion to allow and compel discovery is brought and the court grants that motion – thus, strategically a party might bring an anti-SLAPP motion simply to see if they can prevail even if their arguments and chances of prevailing are not good – and the statute further provides that if a party prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion they are entitled to attorneys’ fees whereas if a party defeats an anti-SLAPP motion the statute does not provide that they are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. The anti-SLAPP statute is ripe for abuse or use in situations that might be counter to other public or judicial policies, which the court in Urick appeared to recognize, but as the court noted, nevertheless the statute is still on the books and is applicable unless and until the Legislature does something about the statute.

* * * * * * *

Updated (02172017) California Trustee And Beneficiary Responsibilities And Rights – Please Use It, And Tell Others

Below I have provided a link to my updated (02172017) paper California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights. Please use it, and pass it along and tell other people who would be interested.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, Northern and Southern California, 149 Commonwealth Drive, Ste. 1001, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 813-9700, Extension 233, http://www.rroyselaw.com. My practice includes civil and probate court litigation (business, real estate, trusts and estates, employment, IP, D&O, serious personal injury, elder abuse, etc., and representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries, and audit committees and D&O.

Here is the link to the updated California Trustee and Beneficiary Responsibilities and Rights (02172017) a-summary-of-california-trustee-and-beneficiary-responsibilities-and-rights-dave-tate-esq-02172017

david-tate-picture-large-cropped

 

 

Everyday is elder abuse prevention day – video cartoon – please pass it along

Here’s a different presentation approach – please do pass it along to your contacts and people who would be interested. This is an important topic that needs more discussion. Thank you. Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)

Attorney in Fact and Power of Attorney Decision Making

Surprisingly, there is very little statutory or case law discussing:

-Attorney in fact decision making under a power of attorney document;

-When the power of attorney becomes effective;

-If the principal is making the decisions;

-When is the named attorney in fact actually acting as an attorney in fact under the power of attorney;

-Is the attorney in fact a fiduciary, and if he or she is actually acting as a fiduciary, for what is he or she a fiduciary;

-Can someone be acting as a fiduciary in some situations or with respect to some issues and decisions, but at the same time not for other situations, issues and decisions (and related, the principal doesn’t necessarily lose decision making over all situations, issues and decisions, right?); and

-The specifics of whether acting as a fiduciary in a particular situation does or does not switch the burden of proof, and if it does, in what manner, to what extent, and for what events or actions is the burden of proof switched?

These are all important issues, and they are becoming more important. Cases that deal with powers of attorney or even these issues usually don’t go into detail, but many times simply find in a conclusory fashion that someone was a fiduciary so for all purposes and for all events or actions the burden of proof is shifted, and all depending on the judgment of the trier of fact which is often a single judge. I submit that this approach is way to simplistic, conclusory and lacking in critical legal analysis.

The California Probate Code provides that agency law applies to power of attorney, attorney in fact, and principal issues, unless the Probate Code contains a provision that states otherwise or that directly addresses the issue at hand. I very seldom hear discussions in court about statutes that address powers of attorney, or actions and responsibilities and decision making thereunder. The following are a couple of those statutes.

California Probate Code Section 4234 – (a) To the extent reasonably practicable under the circumstances, an attorney-in-fact has a duty to keep in regular contact with the principal, to communicate with the principal, and to follow the instructions of the principal.

California Probate Code Section 4657 – A patient is presumed to have the capacity to make a health care decision, to give or revoke an advance health care directive, and to designate or disqualify a surrogate. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof.

California Probate Code Section 4684 – An agent shall make a health care decision in accordance with the principal’s individual health care instructions, if any, and other wishes to the extent known to the agent. Otherwise, the agent shall make the decision in accordance with the agent’s determination of the principal’s best interest. In determining the principal’s best interest, the agent shall consider the principal’s personal values to the extent known to the agent.

As you can see, the attorney in fact, assuming that he or she is in fact acting under the power of attorney and as an attorney in fact for the specific situation, issue or action at hand, should be communicating with the principal about important issues and the principal’s wishes and decisions with respect to those issues. And there is or might be an actual or implied presumption that the principal has decision making capacity and is making the decision in that circumstance.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California, http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

Is This Undue Influence – It Could Be – You Decide

I was reading an article recently. It in part described a situation where one of Dad’s adult children said that Dad could not see his granddaughter anymore because the son was upset with Dad’s estate plan, but that Dad could see his granddaughter if he made some changes to the plan.

Undue influence is described in several different ways, including by statute and by case law. When are statements or discussions merely opinions, or influence, or persuasion, or even argument or disagreement, but not “undue” influence in nature? It’s not always easy to tell; but on other occasions it is obvious. You judge the above scenario using the below definition of undue influence. It sounds like undue influence, and quite possibly also elder abuse, if it meets the below criteria.

The following information is copied from my elder abuse presentation slides.

California Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.70 provides the following statutory definition of undue influence:

(a) “Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered:

(1) The vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s vulnerability.

(2) The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include, but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification.

(3) The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (A) Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information, or sleep. (B) Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion. (C) Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.

(4) The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.

(b) Evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.

 

New Story – elder in board and care assisted living (RCFE) runs out of money, and doesn’t qualify for a nursing home under Medi-Cal

I heard about this recently – a new situation is arising. I’m just telling you about it. The elder is living in a residential care facility for the elderly, sometimes referred to as a RCFE, or assisted living or board and care. The elder is paying with private money. The assets and money run out. The elder doesn’t have family, or the family doesn’t have money, or the family won’t pay for the elder. Medi-Cal will not pay for a RCFE. In the past, in some situations, going to a nursing home was a last resort as Medi-Cal will pay for the cost of the nursing home. In the past the referral to a nursing home might merely have needed a doctor’s signature. Increasingly, Medi-Cal or its agents or representatives are starting to evaluate whether the elder’s physical, medical or mental conditions actually qualify the elder to be in the nursing home. In other words, if it is decided that the elder’s conditions are not sufficiently bad to qualify the elder to be in the nursing home, Medi-Cal will not pay for the costs of the nursing home, and the elder either will not be allowed initially into the home, or the nursing home and Medi-Cal will want to discharge and force the elder from the nursing home. But in those situations the elder has nowhere that she or he can afford with private pay.