Ms. Doe was a resident of an assisted living facility. She was an elderly woman who suffered from severe dementia. While residing at this facility, Ms. Doe experienced several falls.
A month after suffering fractures from one of the falls, she passed away. The family brought a lawsuit against the assisted living facility for choosing not to perform timely fall risk assessments of its residents, including Ms. Doe.
The case settled before trial for $250,000.
Elaine Jenkins was admitted to the transitional care unit of Vibra Hospital of Charleston. While she was there, she suffered from debilitating injuries, which led to her permanent decline in her health.
Jenkins’s estate sued Vibra Hospital and its administrator, alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, wrongful death and survivorship.
The Jenkins estate also argued that among other things, the defendants chose not to conduct adequate assessments, respond to changes in Jenkins’s mental status, and also failed to notify her family members after she suffered a number of different incidents at this facility.
Nicholas Zilocchi was admitted to the Garden Spring Center Nursing Home after undergoing a leg amputation. At the time of his admission, it was recorded that he had skin tears and wounds, and he was anxious and agitated about these injuries.
Over the next few days, Zilocchi was diagnosed as having additional bed sores including one on his right heel that could not be staged. He was later admitted to a hospital for treatment of septic shock, respiratory failure and necrotic skin wounds that included his right heel. Despite the treatment that he received at this hospital, he died.
Zilocchi’s adult daughter, on behalf of the estate, sued the nursing home’s owners alleging that they chose not to treat his existing pressure ulcers and skin wounds and prevent new bed sores from developing. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had decided not to provide basic hygiene and health care to while he was a resident at this nursing home.
Minnie Pearson was admitted to Carrington Place of St. Charles, a nursing home, after she suffered a stroke. She was in her mid to late 70s when she was admitted. About a month after her admission, a nursing aide, Heather Clark, administered another patient’s hydralazine medicine to Pearson and Pearson became unresponsive and hypotensive.
The nursing home staff tried resuscitation and then called 911. However, Pearson died several months later. She was survived by her four adult children. Hydralazine is known as a vasodilator that works by relaxing the muscles in the patient’s blood vessels to help dilate or widen them. Administration of this drug lowers blood pressure and allows the blood to flow more freely through the patient’s veins and arteries. Hydralazine is used to treat high blood pressure or hypertension.
Pearson did not need this medication.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has held that the release of a master or principal or employer from liability also releases a servant or employee from potential legal liability.
In this case, Michelle Hall sued Tavares Pediatric Center Inc., an assisted living facility, alleging liability for injuries her daughter suffered while being care for there. Before trial, the parties settled. The plaintiff signed a joint tortfeasor release that exempted Tavares agents and employees. The court then dismissed the case.
Later, Hall sued two nurses who provided care to her daughter at the same Tavares Pediatric Center. The nurses moved for summary judgment on the basis that under state law, they and Tavares were a single tortfeasor and, therefore, Tavares released the nurses. The trial court agreed and an appeal was taken.
In an April/May CBA Record article written by attorney Dmitry N. Feofanov, the options for agreeing to confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements were explained. Too often confidentiality agreements seem to show up in settlement agreements or release documents when no negotiations have been previously entertained. At the very least, if a confidentiality clause is insisted upon by any party to a settled case, the inclusion should be negotiated as part of the consideration.
Mr. Feofanov’s focus was on the ethics rules of professional conduct. What Mr. Feofanov wrote was that confidentiality clauses should be avoided whenever possible and even with the risk that refusal to include confidentiality clauses to the agreement may undo a settled case.
Mr. Feofanov says he refuses to compromise on confidentiality clauses in any way and would not enter into settlement agreements that contain confidentiality clauses.
Kreisman Law Offices Professional Corporation