Comments on: Shakedown threatens nursing homes

By: MickeyB

MickeyB — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:36:56 +0000

Nice headline. But you need to read Katy Grimes’ full article (above), not just the CA Roundup tag line. One thing is sure: Bad things happen to good people. When you have a judge and the local DA in bed (figuratively) together, anyone would be hard pressed to expect a fair outcome. It’s a shame the judge is focused on pleasing who he thinks are his “constituents” in Humboldt and not on the actual merits and facts. Well, I guess he wants to be reelected. I for one would question the judges ability to judge as well as his (mal)intentions if he denies the motion for mistrial in light of jury misconduct, which belies the tenet of a “fair and impartial” jury.

By: Caifornia Roundup: No Free Speech, No Tax Relief, Plenty of Nurses - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:57:35 +0000

[…] Nursing home gets dunned for $677 million in a class-action lawsuit because it failed to comply with state-mandated ratio of nurse-hours per […]

By: MickeyB

MickeyB — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:15:34 +0000

Larry and Barry — WELL SAID. Steve — even non-profits make a profit to pay salaries. You want your nursing home to be profitable. What you may not know is that this company spent more in upgrades and remodeling those five facilities than they originally paid for them in 2003. If they are wrong, they are erring on the side of the patient. Attorneys and jurors should not be regulating this industry, which is what happened in this case. The only industry that is more highly regulated than this industry is the nuclear industry. The oversight agencies in place should be the ones who hold the centers accountable. The plaintiff attorney has found his niche in going after nursing homes — he’s done it in the past and ended up settling for pennies on the dollar … he got his fees, and the rest of the class each ended up with 1/1,000 of what he received. He portrays himself as altruistic and helping the poor elderly patient, but he in fact is the one lining his pockets. Sadly, he has no interest in righting any wrongs.

By: stevefromsacto

stevefromsacto — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:22:15 +0000

Damn those lawyers. They won’t let corporations run roughshod over people, they give the little guy the opportunity to fight back. So the right wing is out to destroy them by any means necessary. To the right, it can’t be patients v. corporations or consumers v. corporations, because that might imply that the corporations are wrong.

By the way Larry, there are plenty of non-profit nursing homes. And the issue is not profits vs. non-profits, it’s profits at the expense of patient care. Free enterprise does not mean freedom to abuse or freedom to cheat consumers.

By: barry

barry — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:40:02 +0000

Steve, maybe you should be more concerned whether s juror perjured themselves and a fair and unbiased decision was reached and the law follwed than whether its us against them. And by the way the federal definition of abuse is willfull infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm,pain or mental anguish. Furthermore its not patients vs. corporation its lawyers vs. corporations

By: EastBayLarry

EastBayLarry — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:29:01 +0000

No Stevefromsacto, it’s regulatory nitpicking vs. nursing home patients via fee-hungry attornies. There was *no* abuse, and without profits, there will be *no* nursing home businesses. Is that what you want Steve?

This is another example of why Californias’ regulatory environment makes it impossible for legitimate businesses to survive in this state.

By: stevefromsacto

stevefromsacto — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:54:25 +0000

Wouldn’t you know it. Nursing home patients vs. a corporation. Abuse vs. profits. And CalWatchdog comes out on the side of the corporation. No surprise at all.