More Lawsuits Against ‘Assisted Living Facilities’

About 1 million people in the U.S. now reside in “assisted living facilities,” and in a growing number of cases families are claiming that these facilities do not provide the kind of care that they have advertised.

The problem is that unlike nursing homes –– which are strictly regulated by the government –– assisted living facilities have very few regulations. A company can generally call itself an “assisted living facility” even though it offers very little in the way of medical supervision, and there are very few requirements for how well the staff must be screened and trained.

This has led to an increasing number of complaints about patient injuries, falls, bedsores, medication errors, lack of proper medical attention, and general mistreatment. In some cases there are claims of elder abuse and even sexual assault.

Some assisted living facilities have been driven by a profit motive to keep patients in the facility even though the patient’s condition has deteriorated to a point where they require full nursing home attention.

Increasingly, assisted living facilities are offering special services geared to Alzheimer’s patients. However, because of a lack of regulation, some of these facilities do not have adequate staff to monitor these patients to prevent them from injuring themselves or from wandering off the premises.

Of course, there are many fine assisted living facilities, but those that try to slide by with shoddy services are increasingly being taken to court, where juries are delivering them a strong message to clean up their act.

Toxic Mold Damage Covered by Insurance

These days, more and more people are aware of the health dangers of mold in a home. Insurance companies are also aware of them, and that’s why a lot of companies now say in their homeowner’s policies that they won’t pay for mold damage.

However, even if your policy says it does not cover mold, that might not be the end of the story.

Recently, a family in Arizona had a fire in their house, which was extinguished with water. The insurance company paid for the fire damage. However, the water that was used to put out the fire resulted in mold growth, which caused respiratory and other problems for the family.

The insurance company refused to pay for the mold damage because there was a “mold exclusion” in its policy.

But the Arizona Court of Appeals said the company had to pay anyway. It said that since the fire was covered by the policy, and since the mold wouldn’t have occurred if not for the fire, the company had to pay despite the exclusion.

Moral: Don’t always accept what an insurance company tells you at face value. Only by speaking with an attorney can you be sure that your rights are protected and that you’re receiving everything to which you’re entitled.

It Pays to Have an Attorney Investigate Your Injury

Here are some cases that show that unless an attorney fully investigates the facts of your injury, you’ll never know whether you have fully recovered everything to which you and your family are legally entitled:

. In New Jersey, a driver who was injured in a car accident with an accountant could collect money from the accountant’s employer. Although the accountant was driving her personal car, it turned out she was returning from visiting a client, so she was “on the job.”

. Also in New Jersey, a grocery customer who slipped on some grapes and hurt herself in the checkout aisle could collect money from the store. It turned out the store was selling grapes in open containers and should have known that they could spill when people were checking out.

. In Indiana, a man who refused to buy uninsured motorist coverage could collect it anyway when his wife was killed by an uninsured driver. Although the man had refused coverage, his wife never refused it, and he could collect as

a beneficiary even though he had turned down the coverage himself.

. In California, a woman whose car was rear-ended by a secretary on her way home from work could sue the secretary’s employer. It turned out that before the secretary left work, she had been exposed to some chemical fumes that made her light-headed and contributed to the accident.

. Also in California, a child who was injured at a YMCA could recover money even though his parents had signed a release saying that the Y wasn’t liable for injuries caused by its negligence. A court said the release was no good, because while the Y could make people agree not to bring lawsuits over many types of harm, it couldn’t simply avoid all responsibility for its own carelessness.

. In South Dakota, a customer at a bar who was bitten by another customer’s dog could sue the bar. A court said the bartender might have had a responsibility to recognize that the dog was dangerous and remove it.

HMO Is Sued for Refusing to Pay for Cancer Treatment

An HMO may be liable for a patient’s death where it refused to pay for a cancer treatment and offered to pay for a less expensive treatment instead.

That’s the word from a federal appeals court in New York.

Generally, if an HMO simply makes a decision about whether its policy covers a particular illness, it’s difficult to sue the HMO in court, because these decisions

are generally protected by a federal law about insurance policies.

But when an HMO makes a decision about which of several treatments is appropriate for a patient, it’s easier to sue for a mistake. These suits are similar to lawsuits brought against doctors for medical malpractice.

Bill in Congress Would Hurt Injured Patients All Over Again

A bill in Congress would severely limit the amount of money that patients who are harmed by careless doctors can collect.

The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.

Here’s what the bill would do:

. The amount of money that patients could receive to compensate them for their pain and suffering would be limited to $250,000, no matter how much pain they experienced or how long their suffering continued.

. Punitive damages –– designed to punish people for outrageous wrongdoing –– would be strictly limited.

. The amount of time that a patient would have in which to sue would be limited, and anyone who missed the new deadline wouldn’t be able to recover anything at all.

. If more than one person was responsible for the harm and one of those people could not pay their share, the other people would no longer have to make up the difference.

. Careless doctors in many cases could stretch out their payments to patients over a long time rather than having to pay what they owe all at once.

. The amount that doctors, hospitals and others would have to pay could be reduced if the patient collected money from someone else. For instance, if a patient died from poor medicine and his family collected life insurance, the doctor might be able to subtract the amount of the life insurance from the amount he had to pay the family.

Doctors and others who support the bill say it’s necessary to reduce malpractice insurance premiums that are driving them out of business. But opponents of the bill say the real cause of high premiums isn’t lawsuits, it’s insurance companies trying to make up for losing investments over the last few years.

We urge you to contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them how you feel about this issue.