According to a recent article posted on Law.com, the estate of Melvinteen Daniels brought a suit against the nursing home, The Kane Center in Allegheny County, Pa., for Mrs. Daniels fatal case of sepsis caused by neglect, malnourishment and bed sores.  The lawsuit brought on Mrs. Daniels behalf had the cause of action for violating her civil rights by breaching a duty to ensure quality care under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNHRA).  The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that residents of county-run nursing homes could bring lawsuits for civil rights violations under FNHRA section 1983, which challenges the quality of the resident’s treatment. 

Prior to FNHRA being passed in 1987, there were only two sanctions against nursing homes for noncompliance. One sanction was the secretary of Health and Human Services or the states themselves could decertify the facility and terminate the nursing home’s eligibility to receive Medicaid reimbursements.  The other sanction was if noncompliance was not an immediate and serious threat to the residents’ health and safety, the secretary or the states could deny payment for new admissions for up to 11 months.  If the government did not catch and enforce the sanctioned actions, there was not much deterrence for Nursing Facilities and protection for the elderly.  Private lawsuits became possible under FNHRA, and in addition to sanctions, nursing facilities are held accountable and deterred from abusing and neglecting their residents.  As courts breathe new interpretations in FNHRA, lawyers looking to protect the elderly have more ammunition to hold nursing facilities accountable for their abuse and neglect of residents.

            Now, victims (or their families) of elder abuse and neglect from county-run nursing facilities can bring a new cause of action which alleges violations of the victim’s civil rights.  The violation lies in the fact that “nursing homes are required to care for residents in a manner promoting quality of life, provide services and activities to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents, and conduct comprehensive assessments of their functional abilities.”  Abuse and neglect can now be treated as a violation of civil rights, more causes of actions can be brought to help lawsuits to hold nursing homes accountable.  Also, hopefully the fear of more causes of action and increased damages exposure will deter nursing facilities from abusing or neglecting their elderly residents. 

The York Law Firm believes the new cause of action for violations of civil rights is a positive step in helping regulate the Nursing Home Industry.  Since one of our specializations is Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect, the new ruling allows our firm to expand our work in this field of law.  We look forward to applying this new ruling to our cases involving county-run Nursing Homes and Assisted Living facilities who have neglected and abused residents. 

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

            According to the California Highway Patrol’s 2007 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, there were 188,551 collisions on state highways in 2007.  Of the 188,551 collisions, 184994 resulted in injury.  Following these collisions, most vehicle owners report the accident to their insurance company and have their vehicles repaired.  Once the vehicle is repaired, the vehicle owners go on with their lives and continue to drive their cars with the same sense of security they had prior to the collision.  What most people do not realize, however, is that they are now more likely to be seriously injured in a subsequent car accident if the dealership failed to do one thing – replace their seat belts. 

            Most people do not know a vehicle’s manual requires the replacement of all seatbelts worn during a collision.  Unless a consumer actually reads the car manual cover to cover, they miss the section that states:  “If a seat belt is worn during a crash, it must be replaced by the dealer.  A belt that has been worn during a crash may not provide the same level of protection in a subsequent crash.”  (2008 Honda Civic Owner’s Manual)  If seat belts worn during a crash are not replaced they can be less effective in subsequent collisions and cause serious injuries and death.  The replacement of your set belts worn during a crash should be covered under your insurance policy and, as such, should be paid for by your insurance provider.  When you take your vehicle to be repaired be sure to tell the repair shop or dealership which seatbelts were in use at the time of the collision.  Once they know, the shop should replace the seat belts at the same time they make the repairs to your vehicle.  If the repair shop/dealership does not replace the seat belts, show them that the car manual requires replacement of seat belts worn during a crash.

            If the repair shop/dealership still refuses to replace the seat belts, contact your insurance company immediately and request that the seat belts be replaced.  Of you or someone you know has been involved in a car accident, big or small, please review your car owner’s manual to see what your vehicle’s manufacturer requires.  If necessary, contact your insurance company and request the replacement of your seat belts.  Doing so may prevent possibly serious injury from a future collision.

            Should your insurance company refuse to replace your seat belts, contact a qualified attorney. 

            The York Law Corporation is a leader in consumer class action lawsuits and personal injury law.  We have extensive experience in holding insurance companies accountable and ensuring they pay for everything they are required to pay for by law.  We strive to prevent consumers from being taken advantage of by the insurance companies’ three D’s: delay, deny, and don’t pay.  It is our goal to stop the manipulative business practices of big business.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

             Somewhere in your cell phone or credit card contract, buried in the fine print is a mandatory arbitration clause which waives your right to a jury trial and instead binds you to arbitration if there is ever a dispute.  You may not have known that you have waived your right to hold a corporation accountable through a jury trial and instead agreed to arbitration because you did not read the lengthy contract.  Usually these sneaky arbitration clauses are buried somewhere in a tiny paragraph in the middle of the massive contract.  Now, these arbitration clauses are being quietly added to nursing home contracts.  The Nursing Home Industry is now including these pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses to their admission contracts and you need to know what you can do to protect your loved ones. 

              As you are making the difficult decision of putting a loved one into a nursing home, you could also inadvertently sign away you right to go to court to for neglect or abuse of your loved one.  With the deadly arbitration clause, if there is the death or injury of a loved one, you would be required to fight your dispute in a secret and binding arbitration process that favors the Nursing Home Industry.  When you signed the admission agreement with the nursing home you agreed to have any dispute heard by an arbitrator chosen by the nursing home, to have the proceedings held in private, and for the decision to be unrecorded.  (This has only changed in California which now requires decisions by arbitrators to be recorded.  However, arbitrations still favor the nursing homes, not the patient or their family). 

            If you bring a matter before an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators you are most likely going to lose.  Since these private arbitrators are repeatedly hired by the Nursing Home Industry, it is highly likely that they are going to rule in favor of the nursing home in order to get hired again.  Nursing homes and other large companies are going to hire arbitrators that they know to favor their side.  A recent NPR broadcast highlighted a study claiming that 94% of consumers lost in arbitration and those arbitrators that ruled in favor of the consumer were typically not re-hired by the company for future arbitrations.  This statistic is not wholly for nursing homes but gives a good indication of ones chances of prevailing in an arbitration proceeding. 

           WARNING:  Be aware that you do NOT have to sign any nursing home admission agreement!  The nursing home cannot refuse to admit your loved one into their facility just because you do not sign the contract that contains an arbitration agreement.  By no means are you required to accept an arbitration clause in a nursing home contract.  What should you do if you have put a family member in a nursing home?  If you do not want to enter into an arbitration agreement, carefully read the nursing home’s Admission Agreement and feel free to cross out or decline the arbitration clause.  Please understand that you do not have to initial or approve of any arbitration clause contained in a nursing home Admission Agreement.  You can protect your right to a jury trial should the nursing home neglect or abuse your loved one. 

            The York Law Corporation is very aware of the fact that many companies are taking advantage of consumers by attempting to sneak in arbitration clauses into their agreements.  We are experienced in nursing home admissions agreements.  We are familiar with nursing homes trying to include mandatory, binding arbitration clauses to hold secret and unrecorded sessions that are inherently unfair to the consumer.  We believe that cases of elder neglect need to be heard by a jury and be put on public record.

If you are worried about entering into an arbitration agreement and a resident of Northern California, the York Law Corporation will review nursing home admission agreements for FREE to ensure that you do not sign away your right to go to court.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

            On May 1, 2009, lovate Health Sciences, the Canadian based maker of Hydroxycut issued a recall due to the harmful side effects if its product.  The FDA reports that due to the use of Hydroxycut, there have been dozens of cases of liver damage, jaundice, and other related injuries, including one death of a 19-year-old boy in 2007.

            This is not the first time a dietary supplement has been recalled.  In 2004, the government banned ephedra in many supplements because it was linked to heart attacks and strokes.  Many wonder why it takes so long for harmful diet pills to be recalled or why they are distributed in the first place.  People tend to believe that the FDA has verified that these diet products are at least safe and effective, and in reality they have not.  The fact of the matter is that the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements prior to their distribution.  Regulators monitor aftermarket reports for signs of trouble. There is no requirement that the diet pill manufacturers meet FDA regulations prior to putting the medication out on the market.  The public needs to be aware of the fact that although there are strict guidelines that the FDA requires of diet or supplement pills, these do not come into effect until reports come in about harmful or fatal side effects. 

            According to a Contra Costa Times article, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday June 17, 2009 alleging “violations of various states’ deceptive trade practices acts, misrepresentation, fraudulent, false and misleading advertisements, and unjust enrichment by distributing a product about which unsubstantiated claims of safety and effectiveness were made.”  The makers of Hydroxycut have known for a long time that their product is defective and causes liver damage, and yet they continued to market it as safe.  Hydroxycut failed to warn consumers of the risks injury when taking their product.  The FDA and dietary supplement companies need to come up with a means of regulating these dangerous medicines and the way they are advertised to consumers.

            Hydroxycut, which is now banned, was recalled because it caused injury or death.  Consumers beware of taking Hydroxycut, it can cause liver damage, jaundice, or other health related problems.  If you are taking Hydroxycut please stop immediately and return the product to the store you purchased it for a refund. 

Be aware: before taking any over the counter medicine, please consult with a physician and do research about the product.  If you have any adverse effects from an over the counter supplement, you should get medical attention immediately and report the adverse effect to the FDA.

The York Law Corporation is experienced in lawsuits dealing with defective products.  We have represented clients against consumer fraud and dangerous products that cause serious injury or death.  We believe in protecting consumers against unsafe products, false advertising and unfair or deceptive business practices.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Their Actions Should be a McCrime

           Do you remember the infamous McDonald’s coffee case in 1992?  Many people think that they know the story but the truth is that what you know or remember is probably wrong.  Insurance companies are thrilled that what you know or think you know is wrong because it means that their revision of the story has stuck with you. 

            One of the most commonly known stories that have been spun by insurance companies to try to justify “Tort Reform” (a.k.a. Tort Deform) is the case of Ms. Stella Liebeck who sustained third degree burn injuries from scalding hot coffee.  Many people believe that Stella Liebeck was driving through the McDonald’s drive through to get her morning coffee.  Then, as she was driving the lid came open and spilled all over her.  She then received millions of dollars because the jury wanted to punish McDonald’s for her “minimal injuries”.  That spin on the infamous McDonald’s Coffee Cup case is false and insurance companies are banking on your believing the myth they created.

Here are the real facts of the case.   Between 1982 and 1992, McDonalds had a reported 700 burn related injuries due to their coffee being served between 180 and 185° Fahrenheit, which they knew to be too hot for consumption.  Before this lawsuit, more than 700 people made complaints to McDonalds for scalding coffee burns in the previous ten years. Despite these numerous complaints, McDonald’s failed to consult a burn expert and failed to lower the temperature of its coffee. 

Ms. Liebeck, who was 79 years old at the time, was a passenger in a parked car getting her breakfast at the McDonald’s drive through.  The driver of the car pulled over to allow her to take off the lid and add cream and sugar to the cup.  There was no cup holder in the car so Ms. Liebeck held the coffee in between her legs.  The slick Styrofoam cup flipped backwards dumping scalding liquid into her lap and saturated the cotton sweat-suit she was wearing – which in turn clung to her legs holding the hot liquid against her skin.  Ms. Liebeck went to the emergency room and was hospitalized for 7 days with third degree burns over her genital, thigh and upper leg.  She received surgery (skin grafts) and had to stay home for 3 weeks to heal.  She lost 30 pounds and her family thought she wasn’t going to make it. 

As for the money she was awarded, many think it was millions of dollars.  But that is not true.  She was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault.  She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, but the judge later reduced that to $480,000. 

            Before filing the lawsuit, Ms. Liebeck’s family attempted to settle with McDonald’s for only her out-of-pocket expenses of a little more than $2,000.  McDonald’s would not budge past $800.  

What does this mean for you, the consumer? Third degree burns occur at 185 degrees in just 2 – 5 seconds. They can require skin grafting and other expensive medical treatments that can exceed tens of thousands of dollars and inflict severe prolonged pain and permanent disability.

            Be aware of the potential danger of scalding liquids when at home or elsewhere. Make sure that children don’t have access to scalding liquids. Be aware that hot water is particularly harmful for young children because their skin is thinner than an adult’s.  A child will suffer a severe burn if exposed to 140-degree water for just three seconds. Be aware that elderly people are more vulnerable as well due to sensitive skin and slower reaction times.

Make sure that you know all the facts before buying into the sensational stories permeating our culture. Don’t let insurance company propaganda rob you of your rights to use our civil justice system to ensure your family’s safety.

The York Law Corporation is experienced in personal injury law, including burn injuries.  We zealously represent our clients against insurance companies to prevent manipulation and strive to achieve excellent results either in court or by settlement.  We also know that insurance companies are notorious for the three D’s: delay, deny, and don’t pay.  We consider it a vital part of our practice to ensure that irresponsible companies take responsibility for any negligent or harmful action.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Bankrupt and No Longer Liable for Injuries or Death from Defective Products from Pre-Bankruptcy Days

In what seems a futile attempt to save the crumbling economy, the U.S. poured a great deal of tax dollars to keep the auto-industry afloat.  The car company GM received $49.8 billion dollars and Chrysler received $15.5 billion.  In addition, Chrysler Financial the finance company for the company received $1.5 billion and GMAC, the lending company for both GM and Chrysler received $13.5 billion in government bailout money. The government distributed this money to GM, Chrysler, and other companies in the hopes that they would make it through the economic crisis and continue to manufacture products and provide jobs.  After taking their share of bailout funds, GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. 

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler recently put out an advertisement which highlights the serious issues that arise from these two companies declaring bankruptcy.  GM and Chrysler no longer protect consumers that are injured or killed from a product defect that existed pre-bankruptcy.  Under the bankruptcy plan for both companies, consumers are no longer protected if they or a loved one are injured or killed due to a defect on a GM or Chrysler vehicle that existed pre-bankruptcy.  This is disheartening considering that in between Quarter 3 of 2003 and Quarter 4 of 2008; Chrysler had approximately 3,497 death and injury claims. GM had an estimated 15,284 death and injury claims during the same time frame.  This means that the two companies accounted for 47% of all claims filed against auto manufacturers between 2003 and 2008.

According to an article on June 23, 2009 from United Press International, a recent safety report has said that more than 3,400 U.S. citizens could be injured or killed in the next year by defective cars produced by GM and Chrysler.  What do consumers do about future injury and death related claims?  Who do the consumers turn to when they are hurt from a defective product?  These two companies deny claims related to a product defect from pre-bankruptcy days, saying it is no longer their problem even though they are responsible.  Other than the insurance companies, consumers who have been injured or have family members who were killed by pre-bankruptcy defective products now have no one to pay for the costs related to their injuries.

The York Law Corporation is a national leader in prosecuting consumer class action lawsuits.  Our firm believes in protecting consumers from being taken advantage of by large corporations.  We specialize in cases where businesses have unfair or deceptive business practices that take advantage of consumers.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

In a Los Angeles Time article on June 11, 2009, it was reported that State officials recently fined two nursing homes in Orange County for providing inadequate care that led to the deaths of two residents. 

In late November 2008, an 82 year old woman was admitted to the Alamitos West Health Care Center in Los Alamitos, CA.  When she was admitted, a doctor ordered that her fluid intake be monitored by staff at every shift.  The registered dietitian on staff could not prove that the nurses at the facility had made sure the woman was drinking enough fluids.  Review of patient’s fluid intake forms showed blank spaces or illegible writing.  On December 19th, the woman was hospitalized for a urinary tract infection, dehydration and an “altered mental status.”  The woman died six days later on Christmas day from her symptoms. The California Department of Public Health found that the nursing home failed to follow proper procedures which caused the patient to suffer dehydration and acute kidney failure and fined the facility $100,000.  According to Betsy Hite, the facility’s spokeswoman, the nursing home plans to appeal the fine.

On March 2, 2009, a male resident at the Huntington Valley Healthcare Center in Huntington Beach, CA died because the registered nurse supervisor did not call 911 or administer CPR because she thought the patient had a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate).  According to State officials, a licensed vocational nurse on staff called a family member to inform them that the man had died.  The family member told the nurse to hang up and call 911 because the patient’s medical record included an advance directive form from family which marked the option “I DO WANT C.P.R.” in an emergency situation.  When paramedics arrived, they found the man in his bed with no heart beat, a sheet over him, and no signs of C.P.R. being administered. The California Department of Public Health fined the facility $80,000.  At this time, the nursing home does not know if they will appeal the fine.

            The California Department of Public Health has many rules and regulations that nursing facilities must follow.  However, it is incredibly easy for bad nursing home conduct to slip by the State.  In many instances, the State does not do an investigation at all.  Often times, the State does their investigation years after the elderly person has already died.  When the State issues a citation, the nursing home will usually appeal the citation or try to settle for less.  Which then begs the question:  does nursing home neglect and abuse ever really stop?

           These two facilities have obtained a Class AA violation from the California Department of Public Health.  These violations are the most severe and are issued when a resident’s death can be directly and officially attributed to the responsibility of the facility, and carries fines between $25,000 and $100,000.

             The York Law Firm is experienced in prosecuting elder neglect cases involving the atrocities that many nursing homes commit on a regular basis when they fail to take proper care of our elderly residents.  One of our specializations is Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect.  We have successfully applied Federal and State laws to protect those living in Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities from being victims of neglect and abuse.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

http://www.yorklawcorp.com/practice/nursing-home-abuse/

Welcome to the York Law Corporation Blog. This Blog is intended to keep everyone up-to-date and informed on topics related to what our firm practices. We will update this Blog with articles, videos, new laws, and any other information relevant to the services we provide and types of cases we work on. Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts on the various issues we will be discussing. The main purpose of this Blog is to keep everyone that visits this site informed about the critical issues we see at our firm every day. Our firm covers a variety of areas including: Personal Injury, Catastrophic Injuries, RSD Injury, Automobile Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Large Truck Accidents, Nursing Home Abuse, Class Actions, Birth Injury, Cerebral Palsy, Wrongful Termination, and Wage and Hour Litigation. Please look at our Homepage for descriptions of our practice areas and contact information.

Please note that this blog is for informational purposes, nothing in it is to constitute legal advice. 

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

[youtube width="400" height="334"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56BFCIi7d-c[/youtube]

Transcript

INTERVIEW ABOUT THE UPS WAGE AND HOUR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT OF $87 MILLION DOLLARS

INTERVIEWOR: For years, shipping giant UPS had a dark secret. One that Wendy York and co-counsel exposed to the world.

WENDY YORK: We were fighting for the workers, the drivers who were being taken advantage of by UPS the tightest ship in the shipping business. They were encouraged not to go with their lunch breaks or meal periods and UPS was actually stealing time from them through a computerized unlawful deduction from their paystubs everyday.

CO-COUNSEL: Requiring them to do almost an impossible amount of deliveries in a day and then automatically deducting an hour or a half hour for lunch.

INTERVIEWOR: Co-counsel and York took on UPS on behalf of 23,000 workers in a daunting fight.

WENDY YORK: They hired what I call “tall building lawyers” who engaged in scorched earth litigation for three and a half years.

INTERVIEWOR: With trial looming, UPS settled the case for $87 million dollars, the largest wage and hour case in California history.

WENDY YORK: It was a message, a statement to UPS that “UPS you can’t treat your drivers like this anymore. You cannot profit at the expense of your drivers.”

INTERVIEWOR: And the team made sure any unclaimed money in the settlement went to charity.

CO-COUNSEL: Roughly $1.4 million dollars went to the Northern California Food Bank and $1.4 million dollars went to the Southern California Food Bank.

WENDY YORK: I will be shopping or I will be out and about and I will run into a UPS driver and I will ask them you know wherever I am in California – Are you taking your lunches – are you taking your breaks? And they will look at me and they will say, “ahhh you are my lawyer – thank you.”