Tweet
Recently, a jury awarded $671 million in a case. No patients were harmed, but now the firm is facing being closed and hundreds of elderly will have to look everywhere to live. But why?
"Americans should beware of plaintiff's attorneys bearing gifts. We will all be worse off now that judges and juries have taken over health care regulation in the California case of Lavender et al. vs Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
Lavender represents almost everything that is wrong with our legal system. A few profit-minded lawyers filed a so-called class-action suit. Making a claim based on bureaucratic rules rather than patient harm, they won a verdict of $671 million against a company with only a little more than that in annual revenue. In effect, the judge and jury usurped the state's role in regulating health care facilities.
The litigation originated in the arbitrarily set legal requirement that skilled-nursing facilities provide a minimum of 3.2 hours of nursing care per patient day. What is frustrating is that this capriciously set ratio is not supported by any study or other rigorous review proving it necessary or even desirable for quality care."
So, based on artificially set nursing care per patient day a major firm is going to lose everything. Actually California will lose everything. This jury decision is a disincentive for businesses to operate in California.
No charge was made that patients were harmed, just an artificial regulation meant to create more union members, was "violated".
"Perhaps it wouldn't be such an abuse of the judicial system if in fact the facilities in question were understaffed. Not the case, according to defense attorney Kippy Wroten, who argued that "these facilities were always appropriately staffed."
Instead, says Wroten, the issue is one of "inadequate documentation, not inadequate care;" documentation that was never required under any law to be maintained. The question therefore becomes whether any company should be required to prove that they complied with a mythical standard created by plaintiff lawyers.
Because the California Department of Public Health failed to adopt the rules needed to define the 3.2 calculation, the dispute devolved into a battle of methodologies. The Department of Public Health admits that "historically it has been difficult for interested parties to easily and independently determine whether there was adequate nurse staffing to provide the minimum 3.2 nursing hours per patient day."
Why is California in a deep Great Depression? Judicial decisions based on regulations meant to help special interests at the expense of real people.
More...
"Americans should beware of plaintiff's attorneys bearing gifts. We will all be worse off now that judges and juries have taken over health care regulation in the California case of Lavender et al. vs Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
Lavender represents almost everything that is wrong with our legal system. A few profit-minded lawyers filed a so-called class-action suit. Making a claim based on bureaucratic rules rather than patient harm, they won a verdict of $671 million against a company with only a little more than that in annual revenue. In effect, the judge and jury usurped the state's role in regulating health care facilities.
The litigation originated in the arbitrarily set legal requirement that skilled-nursing facilities provide a minimum of 3.2 hours of nursing care per patient day. What is frustrating is that this capriciously set ratio is not supported by any study or other rigorous review proving it necessary or even desirable for quality care."
So, based on artificially set nursing care per patient day a major firm is going to lose everything. Actually California will lose everything. This jury decision is a disincentive for businesses to operate in California.
No charge was made that patients were harmed, just an artificial regulation meant to create more union members, was "violated".
"Perhaps it wouldn't be such an abuse of the judicial system if in fact the facilities in question were understaffed. Not the case, according to defense attorney Kippy Wroten, who argued that "these facilities were always appropriately staffed."
Instead, says Wroten, the issue is one of "inadequate documentation, not inadequate care;" documentation that was never required under any law to be maintained. The question therefore becomes whether any company should be required to prove that they complied with a mythical standard created by plaintiff lawyers.
Because the California Department of Public Health failed to adopt the rules needed to define the 3.2 calculation, the dispute devolved into a battle of methodologies. The Department of Public Health admits that "historically it has been difficult for interested parties to easily and independently determine whether there was adequate nurse staffing to provide the minimum 3.2 nursing hours per patient day."
Why is California in a deep Great Depression? Judicial decisions based on regulations meant to help special interests at the expense of real people.
More...