Blog Category:

Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Negligence

6/8/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Recent Decision Tolls Statute for Fraudulent Conduct

The recent Fulton County State Court decision in Wilson v. Obstetrics & Gynecology of Atlanta, PC held that fraud on the part of a medical provider may toll the statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice claim on behalf of a minor.  In Georgia, a medical malpractice claim on behalf of a minor must usually be filed within five years from the date the alleged malpractice occurred.  Additionally, a minor who is at least five years old at the time the negligent act occurred only has two years to file a claim. Unlike in other areas of law, minors who are victims of malpractice are not given up to their age of majority to file a claim.  This recent decision may give families more time to file a claim when fraudulent acts by the medical provider conceal the negligent act or its consequences.   If you or a loved one was injured as a result of negligence of malpractice by a medical provider, please contact our office for a free consultation 24 hours a day at 888-973-2540 (888-WRECK-404).

6/8/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Recent Decision Tolls Statute for Fraudulent Conduct

The recent Fulton County State Court decision in Wilson v. Obstetrics & Gynecology of Atlanta, PC held that fraud on the part of a medical provider may toll the statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice claim on behalf of a minor.  In Georgia, a medical malpractice claim on behalf of a minor must usually be filed within five years from the date the alleged malpractice occurred.  Additionally, a minor who is at least five years old at the time the negligent act occurred only has two years to file a claim. Unlike in other areas of law, minors who are victims of malpractice are not given up to their age of majority to file a claim.  This recent decision may give families more time to file a claim when fraudulent acts by the medical provider conceal the negligent act or its consequences.   If you or a loved one was injured as a result of negligence of malpractice by a medical provider, please contact our office for a free consultation 24 hours a day at 888-973-2540 (888-WRECK-404).


6/4/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Healthcare Finance News Shows Medical Malpractice Payments Continue to Fall

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

Analysis: Medical malpractice payments continue to fall

March 10, 2010 | Chelsey Ledue, Associate Editor, Healthcare Finance News

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/analysis-medical-malpractice-payments-continue-fall

WASHINGTON – Fewer medical malpractice payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009 than any year on record, according to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

This finding contradicts claims that medical malpractice litigation is to blame for rising healthcare costs and that changing the liability system to the detriment of patients will not curb costs.

The value of malpractice payments was also the lowest since 1999. Adjusted for inflation, payments were at their lowest since 1992, a Public Citizen analysis of the NPDB shows.

According to the analysis, healthcare spending rose 83 percent from 2000-09, while medical malpractice payments fell 8 percent (both figures are in unadjusted dollars.)

A total of 10,772 payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009, totaling $3.49 billion. That figure equals 0.14 of 1 percent of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ estimated $2.5 trillion in overall U.S. healthcare spending for 2009.

Last year was the fifth consecutive year that the number of payments has fallen and the sixth straight year in which the value of payments has fallen, according to the analysis. In contrast, U.S. healthcare costs have increased every year since 1965, the first year the data was recorded.

Studies have found that injuries and deaths caused by medical errors dwarf the number of actual medical malpractice payments. For example, the Institute of Medicine found in 1999 that 44,000 to 98,000 people die every year due to avoidable errors.

Proposals to set up alternative “health courts” that theoretically would compensate a greater percentage of patients in a less adversarial setting are misguided, according to Public Citizen, which said such a system would cost several times as much as the status quo if administered fairly. The only way to save money would be to impose draconian limits on compensation, according to Public Citizen.

“Litigation accounts for a miniscule fraction of health costs, small enough to be a rounding error,” said David Arkush, director of the Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “It is ridiculous that certain members of Congress continue to obsess about this greatly exaggerated problem. They should know better, and they should focus instead on fixing real problems like the crisis of preventable medical errors.”



Labels:
5/10/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Joe Kirby: Those pushing med-mal tort reform as key to undoing ObamaCare are praying to wrong 'God'

Joe Kirby is Editorial Page Editor of the Marietta Daily Journal and co-author of the new "Then & Now: Marietta Revisited."

Conservatives around the country hoping to overturn ObamaCare after its passage last week are praying for a political "miracle cure." And this foe of ObamaCare hopes they find it.

But here's a warning: Tort reformers (or tort "deformers" as some have taken to calling them) are praying to the wrong "god." That is, they have made a big mistake, and seem poised to continue making it - that of putting the supposed need for medical malpractice reform at the center of any reform agenda. But it's not an issue that resonates with much of the public. And even more telling, the Georgia Supreme Court gave tort reform efforts the back of its hand last week, ruling that any cap on a jury's award of damages violates the Georgia Constitution.

The Republican-controlled state Legislature in 2005 put an arbitrary $350,000 limit on jury awards for pain and suffering (not to be confused with awards for economic damage). So no matter how catastrophic the injuries inflicted by a doctor or other health care provider's maltreatment - whether they cost you a hand, an arm, a leg, your ability to have sex, or, in the case of a Fulton County infant who was mangled by his doctor during his circumcision, cost you a third of your penis as a result - you could be awarded no more than $350,000 to "compensate" you for having to spend the rest of your life in a less-than-whole state. That was also the most that could effectively be awarded to those with no earning power directly at stake, such as an infant or child, a retiree or a stay-at-home spouse.

(Recall how many times we've heard those on the right decry the need for more stay-at-home moms. Yet tort reformers are solidly behind caps on jury awards that essentially mean those mothers' work has almost no economic value. How hypocritical.)

That brings us to the plaintiff in last week's case, Betty Nestlehutt, 75, a Realtor who now lives in Marietta. Her doctor negligently shut off almost all of the flow of blood to the skin of her face during minor plastic surgery. Gaping holes began opening across her face within weeks as a result as the skin died and fell off, leaving her with deeply disfiguring scars.

But tort reformers turned a blind eye to such cases. "Tort Reform" was needed to keep down medical insurance premiums and prevent doctors from "fleeing the profession" for fear of being sued by award-hungry plaintiffs, they argued.

Yet Mrs. Nestlehutt's attorneys stated that the state's doctors have seen no more than a 7 percent reduction in their premiums since the law took effect in 2005 - and that MAG Mutual, which insures virtually all Georgia doctors, had reported a quadrupling of its net income. Meanwhile, the number of doctors in Georgia keeps growing - and probably not because we had such caps in place, but because of the same reasons that the ranks of most other professions in the metro area continue to grow.

The jury in Mrs. Nestlehutt's case awarded her $900,000 for pain and suffering. The state court trial judge ruled that the cap violated the Georgia Constitution and entered a judgment for the full amount of the jury's verdict. The state court trial judge recognized that the cap was unconstitutional. The defendants appealed, arguing through their lawyers, that the cap was constitutional.
To its immense credit, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the trial court judge and ruled that the cap was unconstitutional.

Wrote Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein for the unanimous court, "The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to the trial by jury."

Put another way, the jury caps were a form of jury tampering by the Legislature that effectively resulted in the courts ignoring the evidence presented in a trial.

The court also noted that medical negligence claims were accepted as part of English common law all the way back to 1374 and as part of American law as far back as at least 1794, and were thus encompassed in the right to a jury trial under the Georgia Constitution.

(In an interesting aside, that 1374 case involved the treatment of a wounded hand by a surgeon named J. Mort - the Middle English word for "death." Not the most appealing name for a doctor. )

Also striking in the Court's ruling was all of its seven members (including Justice Harris Hines of Marietta) sided against the caps, including the two appointees (Justices Harold Melton and David Nahmias) of Gov. Sonny Perdue, a big supporter of med-mal tort reform and the caps.

So where do we go from here? Some tort reformers in the Legislature are already trying to figure out how to resurrect the caps. They should stop wasting their time and stop acting as the errand boys for Big Insurance and the doctors' lobby.

It's a big of an oversimplification, but such caps help Big Business and hurt The Little Guy. It's tone-deaf politics and lousy public policy, and it gives tort reformers the appearance of condoning sloppy doctoring.

Is that really what they believe in?

Sadly, I suspect that ObamaCare is here for the long haul. But if tort reformers ever hope to come up with a winning argument for overturning it, they'd do better to forget all about "tort reform" and jury award caps.

Joe Kirby is Editorial Page Editor of the Marietta Daily Journal and co-author of the new "Then & Now: Marietta Revisited."

Labels:
3/2/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Avandia Linked to Heart Failure

The diabetes drug Avandia has recently been linked to episodes of heart attacks and heart failure in its users.  The New York Times received reports suggesting that Avandia, known as rosiglitazone, was linked to at least 304 deaths during the third quarter of 2009.  "Rosiglitazone should be removed from the market," stated Dr. David Graham of the Food and Drug Administration in the article.  A recent investigation by the U.S. Senate found that GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, should have warned patients of the drug's potential risks.  Instead, Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley contend that GlaxoSmithKline executives attempted to intimidate physicians and minimize reports that Avandia increased cardiovascular risks. GlaxoSmithKline, however, insists it condones scientific debate, but concedes the situation "could have been handled differently."   Those taking the drug should consult their personal physician if they have concerns.  If you or a loved one has suffered a serious cardiovascular event as a result of taking Avandia, you should consider consulting an attorney to discuss your legal rights.  Our staff is available 24 hours a day at 888-973-2540 (888-WRECK-404) for a free consultation.

1/13/2010
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

In Georgia, Middle Ground for Victims of Medical Wrongdoing?

from:  www.georgiajustice.blogspot.com/

How many hoops should you have to jump through to get justice? It's a fair question that many people struggle with. Yesterday, the CEO of a Georgia medical services company suggested - in an opinion piece submitted to a GA newspaper - that to be sure that Georgians who have been harmed by negligent medical care are worthy of justice we should subject them to one more hoop. Not coincidentally, it's a hoop that benefits only medical professionals and insurance companies – the only two interest groups that profit when injured patients are prevented from securing justice.

What the author of the opinion has proposed is that, instead of allowing victims of medical malpractice the same Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury enjoyed by all other Georgians, people harmed by medical wrongdoing/malpractice would have to get permission to have a jury trial from a “screening panel” comprised of members of the medical and insurance industries, the same industries that want to avoid compensating injured patients. This approach is wrong and adds an unnecessary, ineffective layer to our civil justice system.

The fact is all medical malpractice cases brought in Georgia have already been through multiple screening hoops. The first hoop is that you have to have had something very bad happen as a result of malpractice. Your next hoop is that you have to find a lawyer willing and able to take your case. That lawyer will tell you that there is another, special hoop that protects only professionals charged with negligence. In order to pass through that hoop, the patient must find a medical professional willing to publicly criticize their colleague and sign a document swearing that malpractice happened. So far your case has been screened three times: Something bad happens. You find a lawyer who will invest in helping you find justice. And, you find another doctor who agrees that there was malpractice and is willing to say so. Then there’s a fourth screening before you can have a jury hear your case: the judge must screen the case, too.


Our Founding Fathers created the world's best independent screening panels when they imbedded the right to a trial by jury in our Constitution. You are entitled to a jury of your peers, not a two step process, the first of which is a trial by jury of the defendant's colleagues. We trust the people of our communities to fairly resolve our disputes when we are unable to resolve them ourselves.

The CEO cites an approach tried in Maine as being the right fit for us here in Georgia. He fails to mention that this approach is regularly criticized by the Supreme Court of Maine as being inadequate and harmful to the people of Maine. He cites, as a reason for needing “screening panels,” a Georgia case involving a plastic surgeon who carelessly destroyed the blood supply to a woman’s face and left her horribly disfigured. He suggests that this woman – who was horribly injured through no fault of her own and who successfully navigated all of the legal hurdles to hold the wrongdoer accountable for herself and other patients – has not done enough. He says she needs to clear yet another hurdle to prove herself worthy of a jury trial. The suggestion is outrageous and it serves no purpose but to deny those who have been harmed their fair measure of justice.


Why should patients who have been harmed by medical malpractice have to go through two trials when everyone else only has to go through one? Why should medical professionals get special treatment? It's a question with an obvious answer: They shouldn't.



12/18/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Radiation From CT Scans Linked to Cancer

Two recent studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found radiation from CT Scan linked to cancer in patients decades after their initial exposure.  CT Scans allow doctors to obtain a three-dimensional image of a particular organ or tissue.  Measurements taken in four San Francisco hospitals found that the median recorded doses of radiation encountered by patients undergoing the scans were four times higher than the currently quoted radiation doses.  For example, the study found that one CT coronary angiogram submitted the patient to the equivalent of 309 chest x-rays.  The authors of the study found that one out of 270 patients who underwent that scan would develop cancer as a result of the high radiation exposure. 

Generally, these cancers appear 20-30 years after the procedure.  The research accorded a 50 % mortality rate to the scans, surmising that approximately 15,000 deaths would occur annually.  The authors suggest that radiation protocols must be improved to eliminate the risk.  The radiation patients are submitted to from CT Scans is far more than previously recognized, the authors warned. 

These recently published studies have brought concerns about radiological testing to the forefront.  Doctors and patients must assess these risks when determining the best course of treatment.  If you are concerned about your exposure to potentially harmful levels of radiation as a result of CT scans, you are encouraged to contact your medical provider.  Discussing your personal medical history will allow your physician to determine the next step.  You may also wish to contact an attorney, particularly if you've been diagnosed with a serious illness or cancer related to radiation exposure.  At Kaufman Law, we're available 24 hours a day for a free consultation.  Please call our office at 888-973-2540 (888-WRECK-404) to discuss your legal rights.

11/17/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

The name “Emory” does not ensure high hospital standards

If you are a patient at Emory Eastside Medical center or at Emory-Adventist Hospital, it is reasonable to assume you are receiving as high a standard of care as patients at Emory University’s highly regarded Atlanta teaching hospitals. But, you would be wrong. These hospitals scored below and well below average on Medicare quality and patient satisfaction surveys. Patients expect quality medical care and deserve to receive it. If you have been injured through hospital negligence, medication errors, chart mix-ups or other hospital errors, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries. Call Kaufman Law 888-WRECK-404 for a free case evaluation.

10/12/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Prescription mistakes can be dangerous

Each year, more than 1.5 million Americans are injured, made sicker or killed by medication mistakes.  These mistakes include dispensing the wrong prescription, giving the wrong dosage, or providing the wrong instructions.  It is estimated that about three percent of prescriptions filled at pharmacies contain prescription mistakes that may cause harm.

  
Gwen Daley, a school bus driver from Logansville, Georgia was a victim of medication error.  Her prescription antibiotic pills were not marked as unsafe for driving.  Yet, while driving on her school bus route, she was overcome with dizziness and pulled over to radio for help.  She continued to take the pills, and her symptoms got worse.  She was even hospitalized for her nausea, dizziness, headaches and blurred vision, but doctors could not figure out what was wrong.

   
Eventually she noticed that not all the pills in the bottle looked the same.  The bottle had been filled with the prescribed antibiotic Flagyl, but also with a strong antidepressant, Trazadone.  The pills look similar, but Trazadone has intense side effects.

   
Daley is outraged about the mistake.  As a school bus driver she is responsible for safely transporting a bus full of children.  She wonders what would have happened if she’d passed out while driving.  In her case, not only was her life endangered by the mistake, but the lives of her passengers as well.

   
Click here to learn more about pharmacy mistakes, how to prevent them and what you can do if you are the victim of a medication error.



8/13/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Calls For Tort Reform a Deform - From the Marietta Daily Journal 8-13-09

Article by Lance Cooper, guest columnist

Whenever health care reform is proposed, some people instinctively think more so-called "tort reform" should be the solution to the debate (see Monday's Marietta Daily Journal op-ed page). This effort diverts us from the real issue at hand - affordable, attainable and safe health care.

Insurance companies and others who are fearful of accountability for medical negligence regularly employ the "deny and distract" routine. First, when faced with hard numbers and legitimate research placing blame not on lawyers, but on their own industries, they deny any accountability. Then they employ methods of distraction to tear us off the course to finding real solutions. Tort reform is such a distraction.

Supporters of tort reform argue that the threat of lawsuits makes doctors order unnecessary tests to protect themselves - a phenomenon they call "defensive medicine" - and yet there is no evidence to support those claims. Studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have all cast doubts that such a thing called "defensive medicine" even exists.

Take McAllen, Texas, home of the most expensive health care in the country. Despite having draconian tort reform laws and the same caps on damages that we have in Georgia, the doctors routinely order excessive testing and procedures. They do so not for fear of lawsuits but because the fee-for-service structure actually encourages them to. In other words, the more tests they perform, the more they get paid.

Claims of "frivolous lawsuits" driving up health care costs are another regularly deployed method of distraction. Georgia, and the rest of the nation, already has laws against filing these so-called frivolous lawsuits. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study finding that 97 percent of medical malpractice claims are meritorious and that 80 percent of those involved serious injuries resulting in major disability or death. And the overall number of medical malpractice cases is low; less than 1 percent of all civil cases are medical malpractice cases.

Another frequently echoed distraction is the notion that doctors are fleeing and causing physician shortages because of liability concerns and increased malpractice insurance premiums caused by lawsuits. Once again, this distraction is false. Data from the American Medical Association show that physician numbers have been increasing across the board for many years. And the number of physicians is significantly higher in states without caps on damages. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that tort reform laws do not avert physician shortages, nor do they lead to greater, more efficient patient care.

Patient care is what really matters at this point. Preventable medical errors and mistakes are the leading cause of accidental death in the nation. Just 6 percent of doctors are responsible for nearly 60 percent of negligent care - and the civil justice system is the only effective means of holding them accountable.

In Texas, after the $250,000 cap on damages was imposed, thereby freeing negligent doctors from accountability, the number of complaints against Texas doctors to the Medical Board rose from 2,942 to 6,000 in just one year. Proposed tort reform measures do nothing but fill the coffers of malpractice insurance companies - the same companies who have raised premiums on the doctors while civil claims have remained stable and, in most states gone down.

Further dismantling our uniquely American system of accountability by enacting more tort reform would be disastrous. We can't forget what just happened with Wall Street vs. Main Street or the crash of AIG. The insurance industry and its special interest groups are utilizing a tired relic of gotcha-politics - blame the lawyers and hope Americans forget about the record bonuses being paid to insurance industry executives after the taxpayers bailed them out. Amazingly, insurance special interest groups, with their call for more tort reform, want to deprive Americans - who just bailed them out - of their constitutionally protected access to our judicial system. Let's ignore those distractions.

Taking away patients' constitutional right to seek justice in a fair court of law, when they have been injured through no fault of their own, does nothing to improve our health care system, nor does it increase patient safety. And it is, simply, un-American.

Lance Cooper of Powder Springs is past president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is a past president of the Cobb Trial Lawyers Association. He holds a degree in economics from Cal-Berkeley and a law degree from Emory University.



Labels:
5/11/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Medical Mistakes Unfortunate Reality


Alison Young recently reported in the AJC on some alarming medical mistakes in Atlanta area hospitals.  She mentions a surgical team at Northside Hospital removing two breasts on a patient instead of the one she consented to, a surgeon drilling into the wrong side of a patient's head at Altanta Medical Center, and doctors performing circumcisions on the wrong babies at Wellstar Kennestone Hospital and Cartersville Medical Center.  She offers a few tips to protect yourself such as talking to your doctors to be sure you agree, in advance, what procedures will be performed, reading consent forms and other paperwork carefully, having a designated advocate to help you ask and answer any questions, insisting your doctor marks body parts before surgery, and encouraging the seemingly endless barrage of questions from nurses, doctors, and other staff. 

Unfortunately, these steps cannot prevent all instances of medical error.  And, as many victims of such medical negligence find out, there is often no  practical  recourse available.  Most instances of medical negligence and error result in damages to small to  justify the costs of litigation. Although assuredly , any incidence of medical malpractice that causes physical injury is  all to real for those  that experience it.  In Georgia, you must be able to prove damage to  file a medical malpractice suit.  The process is lengthy and expensive and unfortunately smaller damages often make   cases economically unfeasible for both the attorney and the victim.  The best protection the  medical industry has  to prevent frivilous litigation and insubstantial claims is the  victim's  lawyer's contingency fee  contract.  This fee agreement allows attorneys and victims to pursue cases they might otherwise be unable to pursue .  Few people can afford to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars per hour for hundreds of hours and for all of the hyper expensive litigation costs.   A  competent lawyer cannot take every meritorious case  unless it will likely result in a  substantial financial recovery.  Medical negligence victims find out too late that the system is simply not designed to  catch, correct and compensate for the routine errors that occur every day in Georgia hospitals.



Labels:
5/1/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Hydroxycut Dietary Supplement Being Recalled After Link to Liver Damage

The dietary supplement Hydroxycut has been associated with several very serious liver injuries.  The FDA has received reports of 23 health problems related to the liver from users of Hydroxycut.  The product is now being recalled by its maker, Lovate Health Sciences Inc.

The reported health prolems include jaundice and elevated liver enzymes.  Such symptoms often indicate injury to one's liver.  One death has been reported to date.  Other symptoms being reported include nausea, vomiting, light-colored stools, excessive fatigue, weakness, stomach or abdominal pain, itching, and loss of appetite, seizures; cardiovascular disorders; rhabdomyolysis, a type of muscle damage that can lead to other serious health problems such as kidney failure.

The FDA is urging consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products immediately, and to consult with their doctor if they are experiencing any symptoms of illnes.

The following prodcuts are being recalled:

Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
Hydroxycut 24
Hydroxycut Carb Control
Hydroxycut Natural

If you have taken any of these products, stop immediately and consult a doctor if you are experiencing symptoms of illness.  At Kaufman Law, we help consumers who are victims of injury from defective drugs.  If you have taken one of the above products and are showing symptoms of illness, please call our office.




3/27/2009
Meredith Parrish
Comments (0)

Are mentally ill patients a danger in your nursing home?

It is a dilemma that faces thousands of families across the country: what to do with their mentally ill family member who is unable to care for him or herself?  Over the last few years it seems that the answer has been to put the person into a nursing home and hope for the best.

 

Unfortunately, according to a troubling report from the Associated Press, the rising number of mentally ill patients in nursing homes across the country is resulting in terrible crimes against older and often frail residents.  The AP documented several cases of murder or rape against elderly residents, perpetrated by patients suffering from mental illness.

 

Federal law prohibits nursing homes from admitting mentally ill patients unless the State determines that the patient requires the high level of care that a nursing home can provide.  Despite this law, more and more states are screening patients suffering from mental illness and agreeing to place them in nursing homes.

 

But why are the numbers rising so drastically now?  It seems that more and more state mental institutions have had to close their doors, and that coupled with a shortage of space in psychiatric hospitals has left seriously mentally ill patients with nowhere to go.

 

Putting elderly nursing home residents together with patients suffering from mental illness is also an economic solution that many states find attractive.  If the percentage of mentally ill residents in a nursing home stays under fifty percent, the federal government will pay for residents care under Medicaid.  If the number of mentally ill residents rises above fifty percent, the nursing home would be classified as a mental institution and would not receive Medicaid.

 

Unfortunately, once a mentally ill patient is admitted to a nursing home, it can be difficult to get them out if trouble ensues.  All of this is a recipe for disaster for frail and elderly nursing home residents looking for a quiet place to live out their final years.






Let us review your case. Please fill out the confidential form below, or call us 24/7 at the toll free number above.

Name *

Phone *

Email *

Tell us more *


Kaufman Law
12 Beck Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: (678) 666-3600
Toll Free: (888) 973-2540
Get Directions

Note: Your information is confidential and is not used or sold for marketing purposes. Written contract required for representation.

Call Us At Our Toll Free Number 888.973.2540
Call 24/7
Homebound & Hospital Visits
Free Book - Hurt in Georgia

Insurance companies, even your own, are not your friend. They will do whatever they can to avoid paying your claim. Educate yourself on the process, and then hire an attorney to protect your rights.

Order Now

FAQs

Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Negligence

view all