You are here

Those Left Behind By Obamacare Health Reform

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states could not be forced to expand their Medicaid programs for the poor as part of the Obamacare health reform law, that is leaving many of the most impoverished Americans still without health care, The New York Times reports after a detailed analysis of census data. Among its findings: "The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states. Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses’ aides."

On a personal note, I still have hope the states that resisted expanding Medicaid will do so in the future. I attended a health law conference last winter, and a Pennsylvania lobbyist for health care pointed out that all the states eventually adopted programs like Medicaid and Medicare, when first created, even if they resisted for several years. He also arged that healthcare providers will lobby to get the expansions in order to control their costs. This is no consolation for any one person who can't get coverage today, but it's systemic hope for the success of correcting the healthcare marketplace.

 

Snowden's Email Provider Protested Against Rummaging Gone Too Far

Ladar Levison, founder of the now-shuttered secure Lavabit email service, is finally free to talk about the federal government's electronic pursuit of his most famous customer, leaker Edward Snowden, after a court unsealed documents in the case. Levinson told The New York Times that he closed down his business rather than cooperate because law enforcement didn't just want access to Snowden's communications but such broad access that they could have gotten to all of his patrons. According to The Times, "they wanted more, he said: the passwords, encryption keys and computer code that would essentially allow the government untrammeled access to the protected messages of all his customers. That, he said, was too much 'You don’t need to bug an entire city to bug one guy’s phone calls,'" Levison said.

BP Wins Court Victory Over Gulf Oil Spill Claims Administration

A federal appellate court, divided 2-1, has ordered the trial judge presiding over the settlement of Gulf of Mexico oil spill lawsuits to reconsider the formula used to calculate claimants' damages, The New York Times reports. "BP has repeatedly complained about the claims process, arguing that the program’s administrator, Patrick Juneau, was approving fabricated payments for business economic losses based on an unsound interpretation of an agreement the company reached with victims last year," The Times also reports.

Opinion: No Discrimination Protection At American Indian Casinos

A plaintiff's lawyer argues that there was no protection for his client, who worked for an American Indian casino, from allegedly being "repeatedly subjected to offensive and explicit conduct based on race, sex and national origin, including being  'dry humped' by his supervisor, having KKK photos emailed to him, being called a Nazi, being given the 'Heil Hitler' salute, having to hear about his supervisor’s sexual acts and hearing customers being racially denigrated," according to this piece in the San Francisco Examiner. Any sovereign nation sets its own rules on what protection should be given from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability and other characteristics, and the attorney argues against "using the concept of national sovereignty to deny people their basic rights to safety and fair treatment. Ironically, Native Americans, themselves the subject of genocide and centuries of state-sponsored discrimination and civil-rights abuse, exempt themselves from adhering to any legal protections against discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc."

Free Speech Issue Triggered By Revenge Porn Law?

California has passed a law to criminalize, as a misdemeanor, posting "identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation," The Guardian reports. The ACLU opposed the legislation on free-speech grounds.

Wired: How a Purse Snatching Led to the Legal Justification for NSA Domestic Spying

Wired looks at how the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Maryland has been used to justify the massive level of surveillance conducted of Americans. That 1979 decision started with a purse-snatcher whose obsession with the victim of his crime led police to use a pen register to track all of his phone calls, including the multitude of times he rang her. "Nobody is more surprised by the long-term ramifications of the case than the prosecutor who won it," Wired reports. "'It was a routine robbery case. The circumstances are radically different today. There wasn’t anything remotely [like] a massive surveillance of citizens’ phone calls or communications,' [Stephen] Sachs says. 'To extend it to what we now know as massive surveillance, in my personal view, is a bridge too far. It certainly wasn’t contemplated by those involved in Smith.”'

Case Sets Up Conflict Between American Indian Sovereignty and Fair Lending

A federal judge in New York has ruled the state's banking regulator can control the lending done to New York consumers by online lenders associated with sovereign American Indian tribes, the Washington Post reports. Loans are made by the lenders that violate state law, including on maximum interest rates. "Once states began introducing interest rate caps, some ... lenders began forging relationships with Native American groups to take advantage of their sovereign-nation status," the Post reports. The tribal plaintiffs argued the ruling undermines their sovereignty and their ability to be economically self-sufficient, the Post also reports.

Same-Sex Matrimony Litigation News in PA, NJ, WV and Mississippi

PENNSYLVANIA: The register of wills in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, ordered to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is seeking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review on whether the lower appellate court had jurisdiction and if the state health department opposing the licenses' issuance made out its burden of proof in the case, Reuters reports: http://whtc.com/news/articles/2013/oct/01/pennsylvania-clerk-appeals-ban...

NEW JERSEY: This state's attorney general has asked a state judge to put a stay in place until the New Jersey Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of the state's civil union law when it does not allow same-sex marriage, Bloomberg Businessweek reports. The AG argued, Bloomberg reports, "the judge should allow the Supreme Court, 'the ultimate arbiter of substantial constitutional issues, to definitively determine the contested issue and allow that court, if it deems necessary, to take the drastic step of rejecting on constitutional grounds' a state law.": http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-01/new-jersey-asks-judge-to-...

WEST VIRGINIA: Lambda Legal has filed a constitutional challenge to WV's ban on same-sex marriage, arguing it violates the plaintiffs's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Associated Press reports: http://m.tribtown.com/view/story/4c19a72e9dbc40cca08b54eb02037d72/WV--Ga...

MISSISSIPPI: A same-sex couple seeking a divorce after getting married in California are litigating to have their marital dissolution recognized under Mississippi family law,WMC-TV reports: http://m.wmctv.com/#!/newsDetail/23551743

That case may be the first of its kind in the state.

 

 

 

Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds Punitive Damages In Nursing Home Case

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Tue, 10/01/2013 - 20:47

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a jury's decision to award punitive damages over the death of a nursing-home and hospital patient whose bed sores led to an infection that went septic in his body, the failure of one of his kidneys and his eventual death.

According to the opinion, the jury found nursing home Hillcrest Center and Jeanes Hospital each 50 percent liable for the April 18, 2008, death of Joe Blango. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages against both defendants, $1.5 million in punitive damages against Jeanes Hospital and $3.5 million in punitive damages against Hillcrest Center. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge George W. Overton reduced Jeanes' punitive damages award to $500,000 and Hillcrest's punitive damages award to $1 million.

The court split on upholding the trial judge's decision to diminish the punitive damages. The majority instructed the trial judge to increase punitive damages by another $500,000 against the hospital. But one dissenting judge on the three-judge panel would have restored the jury's award entirely.

One of the plaintiff's experts testified the development of a bedsore at the top Blango's buttocks was the source of the infection that went septic throughout his body, Judge Kate Ford Elliott said in her unpublished opinion today.

The wound tested positive for both e-coli and MRSA bacteria, according to the opinion. Blango's kidney was infected as a result, and his kidney had to be removed, Ford Elliott said.

There was testimony Blango was not frequently repositioned and did not have his diapers changed habitually during 18 days of treatment by the two healthcare facilities, Ford Elliott said. There also was testimony that Blango was not eating his food, but was not fed by staff nor offered liquid food.

According to the majority opinion, Blango was first admitted to the hospital for a five-day stay after being found, after a stroke, in a state of not moving or speaking. Then he was transferred to the nursing facility for 10 days, and then he was transferred back to the hospital for another three days. After those 18 days, Blango was transferred to another Philadelphia-area hospital where his family first learned of the bedsore in the area at the top of his buttocks. The bedsore never healed.

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the hospital acted with reckless indifference, Ford Elliott said on behalf of all of the panel, including not communicating the condition of Blango's skin when he was transferred the first time from the hospital to the nursing home.

In another example of reckless indifference, during Blango's readmission to the hospital “there was evidence that the hospital failed to turn and reposition Mr. Blango every two hours as required,” Ford Elliott said. A Jeanes Hospital nurse “testified that the hospital was chronically understaffed. Mrs. Blango testified that nursing staff at the hospital repeatedly ignored her requests to change her husband's diaper, and he was always left on his back. There was no attempt to help Mr. Blango use the bathroom or a bedpan instead of adult diapers.”

Hillcrest settled the case during appellate mediation, Ford Elliott said in a footnote. The court did not undertaken any analysis of Hillcrest's liability.

Plaintiff's trial counsel Churchill H. Huston, of the Maher Law Firm in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the case is a hybrid one because it involved a verdict against a hospital and a nursing home. “It speaks to [that] this kind of neglect--whether it's a nursing home or a hospital--the way you prevent a bedsore doesn't change,” Huston said.

The fact that an injury occurs in a medical setting does not mean that all liability stems from medical decision-making and thus requires expert testimony about the standard of care, Huston said.

Bed sores are an issue of simple neglect, Huston said, while the failure to order the right course of treatment would require expert testimony.

“If it's an issue of professional negligence, then you would need expert testimony to support your claim,” Huston said. “If it's an issue of simple negligence, then the testimony of a lay witness is sufficient to support that claim.”

Huston said his firm may seek to have the opinion published as citable case law.

A two-judge majority, including Ford Elliott and Senior Judge James F. Fitzgerald III, decided that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in remitting the punitive damages, including because of the testimony of Jeanes Hospital's chief financial officer that the facility is not-for-profit and losing money.

While the trial judge said he reduced the ratio of damages to be 2:1 for Jeanes Hospital, the judge's remittitur actually resulted in a 1:1 ratio, Ford Elliott said, but “it seems clear that the trial court intended to reduce punitive damages to a 2:1 ratio, i.e., from $1.5 million to $1 million. Furthermore, as the trial court stated in its opinion, a 2:1 ratio is a reasonable relationship between punitive and compensatory damages in this case and satisfied due process,” Ford Elliott said.

The majority ordered a punitive damages award of $1 million, instead of $500,000, be entered on remand against Jeanes Hospital.

In dissent, Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy said that she disagreed with the trial court's reduction of the punitive damages award because she discerned “no abuse of discretion or constitutional infirmity in the initial $1.5 million punitive damage award,” she said.

A private lien from Blango's union health insurance was asserted and then resolved out of the settlement with the nursing home, Huston said.

The settlement amount with nursing home is confidential, Huston said.

Stephen Trzcinski, of Wilkes McHugh, was appellate counsel on the briefs, Huston said.

Appellate defense counsel for Jeanes Hospital included Post & Schell and Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, according to the Superior Court docket.

A spokeswoman for Jeanes Hospital did not respond to a request for comment.

Law School Loses Defamation Claim Against Plaintiffs Lawyers

Thomas M. Cooley Law School has lost its claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relations, breach of contract and false light at the summary judgment stage against plaintiffs lawyers who posted on-line to solicit law-school clients and suggested in their proposed complaint that the law school used "'Enron-style'" accounting techniques, according to the opinion.

U.S. District Judge Robet J. Jonker of the Western District of Michigan said in his opinion that the law school is a limited purpose public figure involved in a public controversy about the value of a legal education for students. Even President Obama has weighed in on the future of legal education, the judge said in his opinion. A reasonable jury could not find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice, or reckless disregard for the truth of their statements, the judge said.

According to the opinion, the judge also found that many of the statements are protected exaggeration: "At least two statements fall within the protected category of exaggeration or hyperbole. These statements include the speculation that 'most likely schools like Thomas Cooley will continue to defraud unwitting
students unless held civilly accountable' and that Cooley 'blatantly misrepresents and manipulates its employment statistics ... employing the type of ‘Enron-style’ accounting techniques that would leave
most for-profit companies facing the long barrel of a government indictment and the prospect of paying a
substantial criminal fine,'" the judge said. "Further, the statement that 'Cooley grossly inflates its graduates’
reported mean salaries' may not merely be protected hyperbole, but actually substantially true."

Read the full opinion here: http://www.abajournal.com/files/Opinion_Granting_SJ_Motion.pdf

One blog notes "plaintiffs losing defamation law suits tend to look a lot worse coming out of the suit than they did going in": http://kevin.lexblog.com/2013/09/30/defamation-suits-versus-social-media...

Pages

Subscribe to Cultivated Compendium RSS