Nursing Home Violence on the Rise

Lawsuits involving nursing home patient-on-patient assaults are on the rise around the country.

Patient-on-patient violence is sometimes the result of patients with Alzheimer’s or dementia not being properly supervised. But the assaults sometimes are caused by mixing younger, mentally ill patients with older people unable to defend themselves.

Sometimes homeless people with criminal backgrounds – some of whom are registered sex offenders – are

housed in nursing homes due to lack of housing options.

Some state lawmakers are considering laws that would require nursing homes and assisted-living facilities to conduct background checks of prospective residents and ban convicted sex offenders.

Nursing homes often have to balance patients’ right to privacy in their medical records with providing a safe living environment.

Health Care Facility Couldn’t Get Paid From Patient’s Lawsuit Money

A health care provider that accepted Medicaid payments can’t collect the rest of its bill from money the patient collected in a lawsuit, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling.

The facility treated a woman after she suffered severe brain damage following the botched application of anesthesia during surgery. It estimated the cost of its services to be $640,000. The provider accepted $101,000 from Medicaid while caring for the patient.

The woman’s representative settled her medical malpractice case and the money was placed in a trust.

The health care provider then sued to get the rest of the bill paid, saying it had a lien against the trust.

But the federal court said that when the health care facility accepted the Medicaid money, it essentially agreed that it was payment in full.

The court noted that the facility could have refused Medicaid payments and instead sought payment from the trust fund.

Some other courts have made similar decisions, including federal courts in Arizona and Florida, as well as state courts in California and Florida.

Two-Year-Old Drowns at Birthday Party; Landowners Can Be Liable

Landowners can be liable for the drowning of a two-year-old boy in a pond adjacent to their property.

The boy was a guest at a birthday party hosted by the landowners. The property had a private beach on the pond. During the party, the boy wandered off and drowned in the pond.

The boy’s estate sued, alleging the landowner failed to properly supervise their guests and to keep the beach area safe.

The landowners countered that they were protected by a state law that says property owners don’t have to protect others who use their land for recreational purposes. Many states have such “recreational use” laws, which are designed to encourage landowners to open their land for use by the general public.

But the law didn’t protect the landowners in this case, because they didn’t open their land to the general public. Instead, they were using it for a private party, according to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Similar rulings have been made by courts in Delaware, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and Wis-consin. A federal court applying Connecticut law made a contrary decision.

Ski Resort Can Be Sued Despite Disclaimer

An experienced skier injured by a drunken snowboarder could still sue the ski resort for negligence despite language in the lift ticket absolving the resort from injuries to skiers, according to a recent court ruling.

The ski resort said the man assumed the risk of collisions and it was absolved from liability based on a clause in the lift ticket stating it would not be responsible for damages resulting from “inherent” risks of skiing.

The man while skiing was injured when struck from behind by a high school student on a snowboard. The man and other witnesses smelled alcohol on the snowboarder’s breath.

The man alleged the resort was negligent in failing to prevent the student from snowboarding when it knew or should have known the student had been drinking.

A Pennsylvania court said the clause in the lift ticket didn’t apply, because being injured by a drunken patron of the resort is not a risk “inherent” to the sport of skiing.

Similar rulings have come from California and New Jersey.

‘Certified’ Used Cars Facing Scrutiny

Consumer advocates and lawmakers are increasingly taking to task so-called “certified” used car programs, saying they increase sale prices without offering any significant difference from regular used cars.

Car dealers offering these programs promise warranty coverage and rigorous vehicle inspections. Certified used car programs became popular in recent years as dealers looked for ways to sell leased vehicles returned to them.

Numerous lawsuits around the country, however, are challenging the validity of these promises. The suits are

alleging misleading advertising and unfair pricing.

And lawmakers in California and Massachusetts are considering bills that would tighten the definition of what can be advertised as “certified pre-owned.”

A major problem is that the meaning of “certified” varies from company to company, which means warranty coverage and inspection standards differ widely. Some inspection requirements are allegedly lax.

Consumers should look for programs that ban cars that have had frame or excessive panel damage.

Customer Can Sue Over Unidentified Object in Muffin

A woman who claimed she was injured from eating a muffin can sue the restaurant, even though she couldn’t identify what in the muffin may have caused her pain.

The woman alleged she took one bite and immediately felt a sharp pain and choking sensation in her throat. She went directly to an emergency room, where a doctor told her she had a cut in her throat. A couple of days later she was diagnosed with a throat infection.

The restaurant argued the woman’s case should be dismissed because she couldn’t say what was in the muffin that might have caused her injuries.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court said the woman’s case should proceed to a jury. Consumers have a reasonable expectation that the food they purchase won’t contain an item that could cause an injury, such as a sharp object, the court said.

The woman has to prove at trial that the pumpkin muffin she purchased was defective, that the restaurant was responsible for that defective condition, and that her injury was caused by the defective condition. The court said the woman’s allegations are sufficient to raise questions of fact that a jury should consider and decide.