Long-term care industry, others deserve relief from excess litigation

The following is an op-ed from Doug Alexander, executive director of the Partnership for Commonsense Justice. PCJ is a coalition of businesses and business groups, associations and individuals (including the Kentucky Chamber) dedicated to promoting and encouraging the need for fairness and excellence in Kentucky’s legal system.

The long-term care industry is the most heavily regulated health care industry in Kentucky. According to the Kentucky Association of Health Care Facilities, in addition to state requirements, health department regulations, fire and safety regulations and more, there are over 400 federal regulations with which operators must comply, not including OSHA requirements.

The health care industry in general and the long-term care industry in particular should be carefully regulated for reasons that are obvious to everyone. However, there is a side effect to regulation that has nothing to do with the quality of care or the effective delivery of services that cannot be ignored much longer.

The more abundant and specific are regulations governing any industry, the more opportunities there are to sue. That’s why the American Association for Justice, which represents the interests of trial lawyers, constantly lobbies for more and more rules and regulations governing everything.

By making the regulation of the long-term health care industry as meaningful and transparent as possible, something the industry itself has welcomed and encouraged, Kentucky has placed itself squarely in the cross hairs of predatory law firms from all over the United States intent on exploiting readily available and easily manipulated information.

The long-term health care industry’s reward for encouraging oversight and transparency is to invite lawsuits that drive up the cost of doing business and ultimately the cost of care to the very people the regulations are intended to benefit.

Many of these lawsuits have nothing to do with seeking redress for real negligence or wrongdoing or even with improving conditions for residents. If they exist at all, the alleged abuses often cited in advertisements seeking clients are often based on nothing more than citations for minor or correctable deficiencies. Some may have occurred and been corrected years in the past. Some may never have occurred at all. But because all citations must be reported, even those that are later proved to be unfounded, the data is easily exploited to prey on the emotions of seniors and their families in order to seek clients for litigation.

It is one thing to seek redress when a facility has been negligent. Every industry can and should be held accountable for its shortcomings. However, it is another thing altogether to take information intended to benefit consumers, and exploit it simply as a means of trolling for clients.

One of Kentucky’s largest providers of long-term care, Extendicare Health Services, has had enough. The company recently announced that it is leasing all of its nursing centers in Kentucky and leaving the state. In a May 14 news release, Tim Lukenda, president and CEO of Extendicare’s parent company, said that “the combination of a worsening litigation environment and the lack of any likelihood of tort reform in the State of Kentucky has made this the prudent decision for our company and unit holders.”

Although clearly under siege, the long-term care industry hasn’t asked for fewer regulations or relief from transparency requirements. It made a simple, reasonable and ultimately unsuccessful proposal in this year’s legislative session to create medical review panels to evaluate cases and determine whether the standard of care was met.

Trying to extort money from businesses using the courts is an all too common practice in our increasingly litigious society and no industry is immune.

Unfortunately, our failure to consider even modest and reasonable tort reforms like medical review panels and caps on runaway verdicts is earning Kentucky a reputation as a bad state in which to do business. The Institute for Legal Reform ranks Kentucky 40th among the states in the fairness of our litigation environment, down from 29th in 2008. Kentucky is 36th on the U.S. Tort Liability Index. In both studies we rank behind states with which we compete for jobs like Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia.

If Kentucky is ever going to compete on a level playing field, we have to recognize that our legal environment is going to be an increasingly important factor that companies will evaluate. Considering reforms that will help relieve the courts of meaningless and frivolous lawsuits will not deny anyone with a legitimate case their day in court or fair and reasonable compensation if their complaint is found to have merit.

A screening process for health care related cases would be a good start. If our goal is to create an environment where the highest quality and standard of care is the goal, one way we can achieve it is by creating a legal environment that encourages compliance and makes the court system fair and efficient for legitimate cases.

Trial lawyers gear up for more long term care suits

On the heels of long term care operator Extendicare announcing its departure from Kentucky because of the state’s worsening legal climate, trial lawyers are gathering in Covington in early June to discuss strategies on how to effectively sue long term care providers. Among the topics of discussion at the Kentucky Justice Association’s “Litigating Nursing Home Cases” seminar: challenging arbitration clauses, how to beat common medical defenses and how to “reach” a conservative jury.

In just the past few years, Kentucky’s long term care facilities have seen a drastic increase in lawsuits despite ranking above the national average for quality of care standards, compliance and staffing. Many of these suits originate from out-of-state law firms looking to take advantage of elderly Kentuckians and the state’s plaintiff-friendly legal system. Even if a claim is frivolous, providers are often forced to settle rather than challenge the claim in court, costing precious resources (including Medicaid dollars) that could be used for patient care. That’s why the Chamber fought for a measure this past legislative session to create medical review panels in long term care lawsuits as a way to validate legitimate claims and expose frivolous ones. If Kentucky wants to maintain its presence as a leader in the aging care industry, state lawmakers must act quickly to protect providers from increasing threats of liability.

Long term care operator pulls out of Kentucky, cites difficult legal climate

Extendicare Real Estate Investment Trust announced recently  that its wholly owned subsidiary, Extendicare Health Services, Inc. (EHSI) has entered into an agreement to lease all 21 of its skilled nursing centers in Kentucky to a third-party long-term care operator based in Texas. The reason for jumping ship? Kentucky’s increasingly burdensome legal environment.

“EHSI has operated within the State of Kentucky for over 35 years and as such, we did not arrive at this decision easily,” said Tim Lukenda, President and CEO of Extendicare REIT. “However, the combination of a worsening litigation environment and the lack of any likelihood of tort reform in the State of Kentucky has made this the prudent decision for our company and unitholders.”

The Chamber has long supported comprehensive tort reform to make Kentucky’s business climate more competitive, and this past session pushed a bill that would have established a medical review panel process for lawsuits against long term care facilities. The rising costs associated with medical malpractice liability continue to take a significant financial toll on Kentucky’s health care industry, resulting in increased costs for businesses and consumers and contributing to a shortage of medical professionals. EHSI’s exit should serve as a wake-up call for Kentucky lawmakers.

Tracking the battle over the federal health care law in court

Challenges to the health care law continue to meander their way around our federal court system. From Kaiser Health News, here’s the latest on where each of the 26 lawsuits stand:

Appeals Court Status & Rulings

  • Thomas More Law Center vs. Obama: Appeals court ruled law constitutional on June 29
  • Virginia vs. Sebelius: Oral arguments heard May 10
  • Liberty University vs. Giethner:  Oral arguments heard May 10
  • Florida vs. HHS: Oral arguments heard June 8
  • Baldwin & Pacific Justice Institute vs. Sebelius: Oral arguments heard July 13
  • Susan Seven-Sky vs. Holder: Oral arguments scheduled for Sept. 23

District Court Status & Rulings

  • Court overturned law or part of law: 2 cases
  • Court ruled law constitutional and dismissed case: 6 cases
  • Court dismissed for lack of standing or procedural problems: 9 cases
  • Court dismissed but gave plaintiff right to refile: 1 case
  • Court decision pending: 8 cases

Action Alert: Stop Lawsuit Loans

The Kentucky General Assembly is considering legislation that is being presented under the label of consumer protection, but does little more than legitimize questionable lending practices. HB 412 (Bell), which was rushed through the House last week, seeks to regulate the litigation financing industry (also known as lawsuit lending.) The industry involves advancing money at a high interest rate to plaintiffs engaged in pending litigation in return for a share of any future recovery. In a letter to lawmakers delivered on Tuesday, the Chamber expressed its concern that this bill does little to protect consumers, but rather encourages more litigation. It also legitimizes an industry that has been plagued by documented abuses, ranging from exploiting desperate plaintiffs to compromising the integrity of the legal system. Please help us stop this questionable practice by leaving a message for your state Senator at 1-800-372-7181 and urging him/her to vote no on HB 412.

House committee passes bill regulating litigation financing industry

The House Judiciary Committee reported favorably on a bill Wednesday that would regulate the third-party litigation financing industry. Litigation financing is a process in which a third party to a lawsuit provides a loan for an individual pursuing litigation in exchange for a share of any money awarded in the case. HB 412 appears to set forth a framework of regulation for the industry, but many argue is nothing more than a veiled attempt to legitimize a practice they contend takes advantage of desperate plaintiffs and encourages more litigation. At the insistence of the Kentucky Chamber, the legislation prohibits any funds from being used to fund an actual lawsuit. The bill is being pushed by litigation financing industry executives, with some input from the Attorney General’s office.

Although the measure passed 11-3, many committee members questioned the industry’s motives and suggested that it be tightly regulated by financial laws and held to the same scrutiny as banks. Companies typically charge 2%-4% interest per month, compounded annually at 24%-120%. An industry expert testifying in favor of the bill said the industry provides non-recourse payments, meaning clients are only responsible for paying back the advanced money if they prevail in the case. A representative for the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers spoke against the bill, calling it a “veneer” piece of legislation that fails to address the exorbitant interest rates and fees charged by the industry. Proponents framed the legislation as a way to protect consumers, arguing that because the practice already exists in Kentucky and will likely not go away, it must be regulated. The Chamber is monitoring this issue closely and will continue to encourage scrutiny of this issue.

The bill is now set to be heard in the House. Please tell us what you think of HB 412. Does HB 412 adequately regulate this industry?  Should the practice of litigation funding be outlawed? Send an email to Charles George at cgeorge@kychamber.com.

Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled the national health care law unconstitutional Monday, agreeing with 26 states who argued Americans cannot be required to purchase health insurance, also known as the “individual mandate.” A federal judge in Virginia has also declared the law unconstitutional, while two other judges have ruled the opposite. The disagreement in the courts likely means a final decision will come from the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s what Judge Vinson wrote:

I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’

Chamber files amicus brief to uphold precedent in slip and fall cases

The Kentucky Chamber, joined by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Kentucky Retail Federation, filed another amicus brief with the Kentucky Supreme Court this week, this time in the matter of Stapleton v. Citizens. The plaintiff in Stapleton sued a bank after she slipped on ice and injured herself in the bank’s parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank and the Kentucky Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.

The Supreme Court is reviewing whether business owners owe a duty to customers to warn or remove natural conditions such as snow and ice. The current standard, which has been in place for decades, imposes no such duty unless actions by the business owner heighten or conceal the hazard of the natural condition. The Chamber argues that to overturn longtime precedent on this issue would be an unreasonable burden upon businesses and the economy. Business owners would be required to take onerous and expensive measures to try to completely remove all snow and ice, when the commensurate benefit will likely be slight because snow and ice will typically melt away naturally within a short period of time. Additionally, the “no duty” rule currently does not act to discourage Kentucky businesses from removing snow and ice, as their main goal is not to avoid liability but instead to attract customers through competition, quality, and service.

Fighting for taxpayers at the Supreme Court

 There’s no denying that times are tough for everyone right now; business, family and government alike. But the Kentucky Chamber believes that many state governments are unjustifiably attempting to reconcile their budgets at the expense of employers by creating new laws subjecting taxpayers to additional taxes or worse, depriving taxpayers of a right to pursue refund claims of overpaid taxes. The Chamber has taken a stand against this issue by filing a friend of the court, or amicus brief, just last week in the Ford Motor Credit v. Department of Treasury case.

“It is critical that we defend against retroactive tax legislation,” said Bryan Sunderland, VP of Public Affairs. “These laws are targeted attempts to balance state budgets on the backs of employers. The last thing job creators need is to be burdened by unexpected government-imposed costs.”

The Kentucky Chamber filed its amicus brief, which was submitted by Mark Sommer and Jennifer Barber of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald, PLLC, in conjunction with the U.S. Chamber and the Michigan Chamber, in hope of providing a more stable and predictable tax environment for businesses.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers

%d bloggers like this: