If you or a loved one has received substandard care at The Village Healthcare Center, contact Charles at The McIver Law Firm.

The Village Healthcare Center will lay off approximately 120 employees as part of an effort to change the focus of its operations.

The Village Healthcare Center will permanently let go of the employees at its 1341 Blalock Road facility by May 15, according to documents filed with the Texas Workforce Commission.

The Village Healthcare Center provides extended-stay nursing care to seniors with varying levels of disabilities.

The decision to implement layoffs and change its business focus was due to the results of a recent survey by Department of Aging and Disability Services, officials said.

The nursing home is planning an extensive renovation of the facility and during construction, the center will be unable to provide services to most of its residents who will be transferred to other facilities. As a result, it was necessary to lay off employees, a letter to the TWC said.

Affected employees include certified nursing assistants, medication aides, housekeepers and licensed vocational nurses.

Privately owned Atlanta-based SavaSeniorCare LLC, which owns the center, operates 14 locations in the Houston market.

In a lengthy defense of statutes of repose generally, the court found that the legislature had the right to restrict all claims after 10 years, even where, as in this case, there was no way for the plaintiff to have known of the negligence.  By so holding, the court has ended any debate about the constitutionality of this provision.  Based on the rational of the opinion, it would appear that the statute of repose would likely also be constitutional as applied to a minor who never had an opportunity to bring a claim after the age of majority.  Although this question is not directly answered in the court’s opinion, the rational would support such a finding.

This adds another layer of complexity to the already procedurally complex healthcare liability area of practice.  This case will likely most apply to retained object cases, failure to diagnose cases, and cases involving minors and the mentally incompetent.  Of course, the court, while extensively discussing the hardship of unlimited potential liability on the physicians, insurance companies, and hospitals, the court makes only passing reference to the difficulties endured by those who had no way of knowing of the negligence or no legal right to bring a claim in the first place (in the case of minors and incompetents).  While a court should give deference to the intent of the legislature, a court should recognize that the Texas Constitution is intended to provide a check on the exercise of power.  Certainly the should consider the protection of the reasonably unaware and the legally unable before giving a blank endorsement of statutes of repose.

The lawyers at The McIver Law Firm are singularly focused on this complex area of practice.  If you have a healthcare liability claim, contact us for a case evaluation or to discuss a referral.

In the case, the plaintiff argued that the agreed docket control order entered in the case extended the deadline for filing the Chapter 74 report.  The agreed docket control order made no mention of the Chapter 74 expert report deadline and, instead, was a typical docket control order setting the deadlines for both parties to designate and file reports.  The trial court disagreed and dismissed the case when the plaintiffs failed to timely file the report.  The San Antonio court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that where there was an ambiguity in the agree docket control order, it operated to extend the Chapter 74 deadline as well.

In a divided opinion, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the dismissal.  In so doing, the court said, “We hold that an agreement of the parties that is intended to extend the statutorily mandated 120-day expert report deadline must explicitly state that the agreement is for that purpose. An agreed docket control order that includes only a general discovery deadline for the production of expert reports is ineffective to extend the statute’s specific threshold expert report requirement.”

This holding underscores the need to timely file the expert report and continues the trend of making healthcare liability claims procedurally difficult for practitioners unfamiliar with the statute.  As more and more of these opinions come out in favor of the defendants and an anti-plaintiff reading of the statute, practitioners will be in even more danger of committing malpractice.  Medical malpractice in Texas is not for the faint of heart or for the attorney without sufficient malpractice insurance.

The full opinion can be found at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070787.htm

The attorneys at The McIver Law Firm have a singular focus on healthcare litigation and accept referrals of healthcare matters.

According to data collected by CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services), in one state, 28 percent of nursing home patients were given antipsychotic drugs.  What is stunning, however, is that, according to the same study, 22 percent of those patients receiving antipsychotic drugs did not have a medical condition calling for the treatment. These drugs are intended to treat schizophrenia, not dementia.

Why do nursing homes give these psychotropic drugs so freely?  It makes it easier on the nursing home.  “Way too many patients in nursing homes are treated with antipsychotics purely to sedate them or to control behaviors that are difficult for the staff,” said Robert A. Stern, an Alzheimer’s specialist and brain researcher at Boston University School of Medicine.  “[Nursing homes] are indeed understaffed, they are indeed under-trained, and it takes an awful lot of well-trained people to manage the difficult behaviors that can be exhibited by people with dementia.”

And there is a consequence to these drugs.  “Twice in the last five years, federal regulators have issued nationwide alerts about troubling and sometimes fatal side effects when antipsychotics are taken by people with dementia, including increased confusion, sedation, and weight gain.”  reported the Boston Globe.   Safety concerns regarding their use are increasing; in 2005, the Food and Drug Administration issued warnings regarding the risk of death among older adults with dementia taking these agents to control behavioral symptoms.  A large clinical trial recently concluded that the adverse effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs outweighed the benefits in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

In a recent study by Yong Chen, M.D., M.H.S., of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, the researchers found that the organizational culture at some nursing homes may encourage the prescribing of antipsychotics, the authors note. “Future research is needed to determine why such a prescribing culture exists and whether there are adverse health consequences as a result of our observed facility-level antipsychotic prescribing rate,” they conclude. “This study may also inform future policies to target nursing homes with high antipsychotic prescribing rates to improve quality of care for nursing home residents.”

Using antipsychotics as a chemical restraint for the convenience of the nursing home staff is against the law in Texas.  The Resident’s Bill of Rights published by the Texas Department of Aging Disability Services states that every resident has the right to “be free … chemical restraints that are administered for the purpose of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms.”

Nursing homes, however, are frequently failing to meet the grade. In fact, according to a federal study commissioned by the Health Care Financing Administration, more than one out of four nursing homes fail and are actually a threat to the patient’s health. In more disturbing cases the very residents whose care is entrusted to the nursing home are actually being abused by employees. This leaves many residents, patients, and family members wondering what they can do to uncover and prevent this sort of abuse or neglect.

One of the best ways to protect yourself or a loved one is through a surveillance camera, also dubbed a “granny cam.” These hidden cameras can be installed in a room, monitored regularly, and be a significant deterrent to harm. These cameras are perfectly legal as long as some basic steps are taken.

Texas law mandates that “nanny cams” are legal and admissible in court as long as (1) the patient themselves and any roommates have consented to the surveillance, and (2) the nursing home has been informed. In the case of a patient who is not competent enough to provide his or her own consent, consent may be given by a legally appointed guardian or holder of power of attorney for that patient. In addition, family’s interested in installing a nanny cam should ensure that if the patient has any roommates, that each of these roommates has given adequate consent for the “nanny cam” to record.

The second requirement for Texas nursing home patients is that the nursing home be informed of the use of the nanny cam. For if the nursing home operator is not aware of the camera (either through notice or it being placed in an open and obvious place) the camera is likely to be considered covert surveillance and thus may be illegal.

Knowing that you can use a “nanny cam,” the question becomes whether you should. While circumstances may differ, generally families should use this technology for three reasons:

1. The surveillance camera lets the nurses and staff know that someone may be watching , ensuring their best behavior.

2. If a patient or family member suspects wrong doing, the camera is there to provide answers.

3. If negligence or abuse is confirmed by a nursing home surveillance camera, these videos are admissible in court and provide strong evidence of wrong doing and liability on the part of the nursing home.

Unfortunately many patients in nursing homes are not able to communicate effectively about what sort of treatment they are receiving. As a concerned family member, providing a camera to record the treatment allows there to be an objective voice to let everyone know the quality of care-good, bad, or abusive.

McIver Law Firm handles healthcare litigation throughout Texas. The attorneys at McIver can be reached at 832-767-1673.