Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Yaz and Yasmin Birth Control Linked to Serious Injuries

Nick DiCello — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:44:34 GMT

For several years, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the popular birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin, marketed the oral contraceptives as not only effective in preventing pregnancy, but also as the solution to a variety of other conditions associated with menstruation, such as acne, body aches and mood swings. That ad campaign has come under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration, which recently ordered Bayer to run a $20 million ad campaign to correct the misrepresentations made by the company. According to the FDA, Bayer overstated the benefits of Yaz while improperly downplaying its risks. In its letter warning Bayer about the ads, the FDA noted that Yaz actually has additional risks compared to other birth control pills because it contains a progestin called drospirenone, which can increase potassium levels. The side effects of drospirenone include an increased risk of serious heart and other health problems.

Yaz and Yasmin are already the subject of multiple federal lawsuits against Bayer, alleging that the pharmaceutical giant failed to warn women and their doctors of the increased risk of injury associated with the pills while overpromoting the benefits of the oral contraceptives. The most notable – and life threatening – of these injuries include deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms. Bayer’s irresponsible marketing of these oral contraceptives has left otherwise healthy young woman facing frightening health consequences caused by a drug that they and their physicians believed they could trust. If you or someone you know has suffered blood clots, pulmonary embolism, hyperkalemia (elevated potassium levels), hypertension, seizures/convulsions or kidney problems after taking Yaz or Yasmin, you should contact an attorney to review the circumstances surrounding your injuries and investigate whether you are entitled to compensation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Employers That Provide Blackberries to Employees Must Prohibit Texting While Driving or Face Liability

Jack Landskroner — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:32:05 GMT

The Workers Comp Insider Blog raises a very interesting and concerning work related issue in its posting March 16, 2007 concerning employee use of Blackberry or cellular devises and the practice of texting while driving.

As if we don't have enough distractions as we hurtle ourselves from Point A to Point B in four ton vehicles, we read that DWT - driving while texting - has become an issue of sufficient magnitude to warrant legislative intervention.

Unfortunately, there have already been deaths that appear to have resulted from this practice.

The "Insider" discusses how the UK has taken significant strides to proactively eliminate this practice by passing legislation which makes it an aggravating factor constituting criminal conduct if an accident results while a phone or PDA device is being used while driving. Some states in the US, including Washington, appear to be moving in that direction.

The bottom line is that employers that provide cell phones, blackberry devices or other technology to drivers to be used on the road, must make sure that employees are not expected to utilize these devices while operating a vehicle and moreover, have a policy prohibiting the same or responsibility for injuries to the employee and innocent third parties will fall to them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jack Landskroner

Faced With More Claims, Long-term Care Insurers Deny Benefits

Nick DiCello — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:26:19 GMT

As Baby Boomers aged, there was a boom in the sale of long-term care insurance during the 1990’s. Now, however, an ever increasing portion of our population, which is living longer and longer, is seeking protection under their long-term care policies. One insurance company executive described the situation as follows: “The long-term care party of the 1990s gave us one hell of a hangover in the 2000’s.”

Long-term care insurance is a contract or policy of insurance which promises, in exchange for the timely payment of premiums, coverage for expenses of long-term care, such as the costs of a nursing home or assisted living facility. As more and more Americans with long-term care insurance enter these facilities, the insurance industry is faced with making good on their promises. Some insurers, however, have miscalculated the profitability of certain long-term care insurance products. For example, many insurers fighting to get into the “long-term care party of the 1990s” overestimated policy lapse rates and miscalculated the mortality rates for the target population. Now, during the “hangover,” insurers too commonly attempt to refuse payment of legitimate claims, sometimes on a global scale.

On March 15, 2006, Penn Treaty President and CEO issued a news release indicating that a “review is showing us that our policyholders remaining on claim beyond three years (particularly on policies issued prior to 2002) appear to be living longer than we had previously anticipated, which will likely cause us to pay higher future benefits due to the expanded duration of these claims.”

Denial of a long-term care claim or the loss of one’s long-term care coverage can be devastating. Imagine becoming accustom to life in a long-term care facility only to one day receive a letter from your long-term care insurer stating that it is “no longer medically necessary” that you or a loved one continue to receive nursing home care, and that benefits will end. This is a common exclusion cited by long-term care insurers to deny benefits. Without benefits, the elderly individual must tap into his or her assets to continue to pay for care, or must burden their family for assistance. Ultimately, once one’s assets are exhausted, he or she is forced to seek government assistance.

If you or a loved one has had their claims for long-term care benefits denied or their policy rescinded, contact the trial attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP for a consultation, and protect your legal rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

The Dangers of Coumadin

Halli Brownfield — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:37:41 GMT

Spangenberg partners, Rhonda Baker Debevec and Stuart Scott, recently handled two separate malpractice cases for clients who suffered severe bleeding complications related to a commonly prescribed anti-coagulant or “blood-thinner” called Coumadin. This medication – also sometimes called Warfarin – is prescribed for medical conditions that increase the patient’s risk for forming potentially fatal blood clots like atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). By inhibiting the blood’s complex clotting or coagulation mechanism, Coumadin prevents the formation of new clots and the growth or extension of old clots.

To test whether appropriate amounts of Coumadin have been prescribed, the prescribing physician must carefully and consistently monitor the patient’s blood for its anticoagulation or INR (International Normalized Ratio) level. If the level is too low, the patient is once again at risk for blood clot formation. If the level is too high, the patient’s risk for severe internal bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and death is increased. While Coumadin is an effective treatment, it can also be extremely dangerous for several reasons. First, the therapeutic range for this medication is quite narrow. In other words, the difference between a safe level of Coumadin and a dangerously high level is quite small. Second, several different factors can magnify the medication’s blood thinning properties including the patient’s liver and kidney function, diet, alcohol consumption, age, and prior medical history. As such to maximize patient safety, prescribing physicians must provide dietary guidance to their patients and properly educate them about this drug and its potentially dangerous side effects. Equally critical, physicians must be on the alert for signs and symptoms of excessive blood thinning and know how to appropriately manage it. If a patient’s blood test reveals an excessively high INR level and/or the patient has active bleeding, this is a medical emergency requiring immediate hospitalization and rapid reversal of the Coumadin’s anticoagulant effect with intravenous medication.

In the case handled by Mr. Scott, the patient’s blood-work revealed an abnormally high level of INR or in layman’s terms that the blood was too thin. Moreover, the patient also had blood in his urine which can be an indication of internal bleeding. Instead of informing his patient that he had a life-threatening overdose of Coumadin requiring immediate hospitalization, the Defendant doctor merely told the patient to stop taking Coumadin over the weekend and come into the office on Monday for a repeat test. Left untreated, the patient suffered a severe hemorrhagic or bleeding stroke on Saturday which left him permanently and functionally disabled. Had his physician appropriately provided immediate treatment, the patient’s stroke probably would have been averted. Unfortunately, this particular physician was unaware that rapid reversal treatment for Coumadin overdose existed until after the patient’s stroke. Through the efforts of Mr. Scott, the case was settled at a confidential mediation.

Similarly, in the case handled by Ms. Debevec, blood tests showed that the patient’s INR was exceedingly high and that the patient’s risk of suffering from spontaneous internal bleeding was likewise exceedingly high. Rather than treating the situation as a life-threatening medical emergency, the treating doctor instructed the patient to discontinue her Coumadin, failed to re-check her blood and did not administer the life-saving medication to counteract the Coumadin’s effects. As a result, she suffered internal bleeding and passed away in her home a few days later. This matter was also resolved in a confidential proceeding.

As both of these cases illustrate, the proper management of patients on Coumadin therapy is critically important to patient safety. While some bleeding complications from Coumadin therapy may be unavoidable, many are preventable with effective and competent management. If you or your loved one has been prescribed this medication, please take the medication exactly as prescribed and consult your medical professional to learn more about how to maximize your safety while taking this beneficial medication. If you or your loved one has suffered a bleeding complication from the improper administration and/or management of Coumadin (Warfarin), please contact us to learn whether you may have potential recourse against the prescribing physician.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Nurse to Patient Ratios and Quality Health Care in Ohio

Nick DiCello — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:43:51 GMT

In 2004, California passed a law setting minimum nurse to patient ratios for hospitals. The law was passed in response to studies and data suggesting that the more patients a nurse has to care for, the more likely one of his or her patients will receive substandard care and attention, and suffer injury, complications, or even die. California's law establishes minimum nurse to patient ratios, in part based upon the level of care required in any given hospital unit. For example, nurses working in critical care units will be assigned to less patients than a nurse working in a unit with patients who have less serious and/or complicated medical conditions and/or who require less monitoring or care. While the ratios fluctuate depending on the type of unit staffed, the maximum nurse to patient ratio allowed in California is one nurse for every four patients. This is a significant improvement over nurse to patient ratios in several Ohio hospitals.

The debate over nurse to patient ratios is a controversial one. Most hospitals claim lower nurse to patient ratios are unnecessary and that laws that define minimum ratios will drive up the already high cost of health care for everyone. Proponents of mandated nurse to patient ratios disagree and suggest that better nursing care will reduce cost by reducing injuries and complications. Furthermore, and more importatnlty, proponents of mandated nurse to patient ratios argue that patient safety necessitates legislation establishing nurse to patient ratios in the hospital setting.

Nurses in Ohio are proposing legislation, in part in response to what they claim to be inadequate legislation already in place. The proposal is nearly ready and is called the Ohio Patient Safety Protection Act of 2008. Proponents of the legislation are hoping Ohio legislators will introduce the Act later this year.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Diane Suchetka recently published an article addressing nurse to patient ratios in Ohio and describing efforts to pass the Ohio Patient Protection Safety Act of 2008. See her story. Diane chronicles some of the several e-mails and stories she received about the "horrors" expereinced in Ohio hospitals due to inadequate nursing staff and attention. What is interesting about Diane's article is that she heard from several nurses, many of whom strongly agree that nurse to patient ratios, sometimes as high as one nurse to every 10 or 12 patients, are dangerously high in too many hospitals in Ohio. Some nurses have even left the profession because they are fed up with an inadequate system.

Inadequate nursing staffing patterns place all of us at risk. Furthermore, it places unreasonable burdens on our nursing professionals. Nurses are an integral part of our hospital and health care systems. Indeed, nurses are the caregiver's direct contact with the patient. Hospitals should be staffed with an adequate number of nurses and nurses should not be overloaded with patients. Adequate staffing cannot be viewed as a business decision. Instead it must be viewed, as succinctly stated by the proponents of the proposed new legislation, as a patient safety issue.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Insurer Ordered to Pay $10,000,000.00 for Bad Faith Termination of Health Insurance Policy

Nick DiCello — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:15:57 GMT

On September 14, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict against Fortis Insurance Company, now known as Assurant Health or Time Insurance Company, for wrongfully terminating Jerome Mitchell, Jr.'s health insurance coverage after he was diagnosed HIV positive. The Court upheld the verdict, but reduced the punitive damage award from $15,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00.

Mitchell, a 17 year-old student, sued Fortis for breach of contract and bad faith termination of his insurance coverage in 2003. Fortis cancelled Mitchell's coverage after receiving claims regarding treatment for Mitchell's HIV-positive diagnosis. Mr. Mitchell's coverage was terminated during a two-hour Fortis "Rescission Committee" meeting, at which the Committee also considered 45 other rescission cases. Fortis terminated coverage on the purported basis that Mr. Mitchell had misrepresented his HIV-positive status on his application for coverage. Evidence at trial, however, clearly demonstrated that the information on which Fortis was allegedly relying was inaccurate. Specifically, a single entry in Mr. Mitchell's medical records included an incorrect date. Mr. Mitchell, his health care providers, and his attorney attempted to bring the mistake to Fortis' attention, but the insurer refused to reinstate coverage for approximately 20 months. Evidence at trial strongly suggested that Fortis was aware it had no basis for the termination, and the South Carolina Supreme Court determined the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Fortis "tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding Mitchell's policy."

South Carolina's highest Court also found "ample evidence in the record to establish that Fortis's conduct was reprehensible," and that Fortis "was deliberately indifferent to its contractual obligations and to Mitchell's health and wellbeing." Click here for a copy of the Supreme Court's written opinion.

Assurant's "post-claim underwriting" (reviewing medical recrods after claims are presented rather than during medical underwriting before coverage is issued) and rescission practices have come under recent fire. Amazingly, Fortis argued to the South Carolina Supreme Court that post-claim underwriting was perfectly legal, and thus apparently an acceptable practice! This summer, Assurant and other large health insurers were called to testify before Congress about rescission. Also testifying were individuals and family members of people who have had their health insurance rescinded, most of whom when they needed it most after being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I attended the hearing. The outrage on Capitol Hill was palpable.

Assurant CEO, Don Hamm, testified that his company's Enrollment Forms and applications are easy for the consumer to understand. When asked about the definition of certain medical terms used in the form, however, Mr. Hamm admitted he did not know the meaning of the terms, and in fact he could not say whether the copy of the form he was shown by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan was current or not. Mr. Hamm's testimony drew laughs and gasps from the audience and several members of Congress could only shake their heads. Not surprisingly, Mr. Hamm decided not to testify at the next hearing held in Indiana. For a press release about Mr. Hamm's testimony issued by the House Committee, see Insurance Company Executive Cannot Explain His Own Application Form.

Fortis fought Mitchell's claims for more than 6 years. Now, finally, however, Fortis is being made to pay for its reprehensible conduct. Hopefully this award will send a message to Fortis/Assurant and other health insurers that engage in post-claim underwriting and bad faith termination that their conduct will not be tolerated and will be punished. Mr. Mitchell and his counsel are to be commended for standing up to Assurant and perservering for the past 6 years.

The attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP are currently handling and investigating wrongful health insurance termination and wrongful claim denial cases againt Fortis/Time Insurance Company/Assurant Health. If you or someone you know has had health insurance coverage cancelled or claims denied, contact us for a consultation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Post Claim Underwriting: Canceling Insurance Coverage When It's Needed Most

Nick DiCello — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:08:55 GMT

Insurance coverage is supposed to provide peace of mind. Peace of mind that an unfortunate event will not bankrupt you. Indeed, when we buy insurance, in reality we are paying for the carrier's promise to pay. All of us hope we will never be required to call upon our insurance providers to make good on that promise. However, we feel our premum is money well spent toward peace of mind that we and our loved ones will be "covered" if and when we need coverage.

Unfortunately, however, having a policy issued and paying monthly premiums may not be enough to afford us the peace of mind we paid for. That is because some companies engage in what is known as "post claim underwriting," a process by which the insurance company waits until a claim has been filed to obtain relevant background information and make underwriting decisions, which should have been made when the application was made not after the policy was issued, and then either deny a claim as one that would not have been covered had all relevant information been known at the time of application, or cancel (rescind) the policy on the basis that the insured made a material misrepresentation on the application for insurance.

Insurance companies are in the business of assessing risk. Before issuing coverage, an insurer is supposed to undewrite the risk, i.e., investigate and assess information to determine the nature of the risk sought to be insured, including whether to accept the risk or decline the risk. In the context of individual medical insurance coverage, a reasonable investigation during underwriting should focus on the applicant's health history and medical conditions. Indeed, people with serious health conditions are not likely to find affordable health insurance because insurers are reluctant to insure a "bad risk." Underwriting/assessment of the risk to be insured should be done before a policy is issued and before a loss is incurred and claim made. Some insurance companies, however, perform little or no underwriting/investigation during the application process, and instead only engage in underwriting after a claim is made with an eye toward avoiding payment of the claim on account of a misrepresentation about one's health history on his or her application. This is called post claim underwriting. It is illegal in some states, and as this practice becomes more widely exposed it is being derided as unfair and impermissible. Post Claim Undewriting Article.

Insurers who engage in post claim undewriting eliminate the cost associated with thorough investigations, which in the context of health insurance can be costly and time consuming (requesting, paying for and reviewing medical records, acquiring medical examinations). Instead the insurer only reviews a relatively brief insurance application which asks some questions about health history and makes the decision to insure only based upon the information provided in the application without reviewing any actual medical records. Given that the average consumer cannot recall or is unaware of all of his or her medical conditions or pertinent test results, reliance exclusively on an applicant's ability to accurately recite his or her complete medical history and condition is unreasonable. Insurers engaging in post claim underwriting issue policies in reliance only on the information included in the application and begin collecting monthly premiums. Then when a claim is submitted, the insurer, for the first time, collects medical records (conducts underwriting) to determine if there is a discrepancy between the information disclosed on the application and the true facts pertaining to one's health history or medical conditions (misrepresentations). The insurer then canels the policy back to its effective date on account of a material misrepresentation or omission that if properly disclosed on the application would have resulted on no coverage being issued. The decision to rescind coverage is made based upon information that the insurance company had access to and should have reviewed at the time of the application (most applications for health insurance require the applicant to execute a medical records release and to identify his or her physicians).

This practice can have catastrophic consequences for insureds. First, for people who are switching insurance carriers, had the company informed the applicants it was not going to offer coverage based on information gathered during the undewriting process, the applicants could maintain their coverage in place and not cancel it in reliance on issuance of the new policy. Also, the applicant may have been able to secure coverage elsewhere if informed during the application proces that he or she would not be accepted, instead of later being forced to try to seek coverage after his or her health status has changed significantly and coverage much more difficult, if not impossible, to find.

The insurer decides when to conduct underwriting, not the applicants. Indeed, most applicants appropriately believe that once a policy is issued, and after having signed a medical recoreds release, that the insurance company performed a reasonable investigation and reviewed records. Insureds are shocked to learn that the carrier never reviewed any medical records until after a claim was submitted. The post claim underwriting practice is an opportunistic one that can have devistating consequences for consumers.

Insurance companies are obligated to conduct thorough investigations of pertinent background facts related to the risk being considered. Insurers are in the business of assessing risk. That assessment should be perfmored before coverage is issued. That assessment should be based on objective medical information contained in medical records, not on information solicited from an insurance agent pursuant to an often times confusing application, and from an applicant's memory. Accordingly, insurance companies should be precluded from denying claims and canceling coverage when they elect not to conduct a thorough evaluation of the risk prior to issuing coverage.

If you believe you have had claims denied or your insurance coverage canceled/rescinded on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission on your application for insurance, you may be a victim of post claim underwriting and you should contact an attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Cell Phone Distraction Causes Thousands Of Car Crashes and Injuries Every Year

Nick DiCello — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:00:02 GMT

Cell phones have become mandatory for any professional adult. Once a high tech luxury gadget, now almost everyone has a cell phone, and increasingly more people have two. Cell phones have made modern life more convenient, allowing us to keep in touch and remain available at all times. Cell phones have helped to define the modern understanding of "multi-tasking" that has become so entrenched in America's social culture.

All of us have either been or seen the motorist chatting away on his or her cell phone, oblivious to other vehicles. And with texting technology becoming more widely used, it is not uncommon to see motorists texting while driving! Whether you are dialing, answering, talking, or texting, cell phones are a distraction and a danger on the roads. Consensus data on the number of accidents and injuries caused as the result of cell phone distraction on the roads is not readily available, however, some sources report as many as 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries are caused in the United States each year because of cell phone distraction. http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html

Younger generations entering the driving public take cell phones for granted. Indeed, they have nver known life, or driving, without cell phones.

More and more states are addressing the use of cell phones while driving through legislation. 5 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands have enacted jurisdiction-wide cell phone laws prohibiting driving while talking on handheld cell phones. 17 states and the District of Columbia have special cell phone driving laws for novice drivers. No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) while driving. For more information on your state's cell phone laws, see the Governors Highway Safety Association website at http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html.

Regardless of the law in your state, if you cause a motor vehicle accident because you were distracted by your conversation or text messaging on a cell phone, chances are you will be and should be held liable. Talking on your phone while driving and allowing your phone use to distract you is negligence. When involved in an accident, you should try to determine if the other driver was talking on his or her cell phone. If you have been injured in an automobile accident, you may want to consider seeking the cell phone records of the other driver to determine if he or she was talking on their cell phone or texting at the time of the accident.

To avoid being a hazard on the road, invest in a hands-free unit or consider available technology that transfers your cell call to your car's audio speakers when you enter the vehicle. At a minimum, every driver should have a hands-free option for using their cell phone while driving. Almost all cell phones can now be voice programmed to call those stored in your phones list of contacts so you don't have to manually dial the number. Many newer vehicles are being sold with the option of installing your cell phone and service into the car.

Cell phones are a wonderful convenience. We have become so acustom to using our cell phones almost everywhere that talking on the phone while driving can easily become second nature. Don't allow your phone, however, to interfere with your ability to drive safely or endanger others around you. Cell phones can be used responsibly while driving. All of us just need to take the time to familiarize ourselves with the technology so we can eliminate or at least reduce the danger posed by talking on our phones while driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Hospital Acquired Infection Lawsuits on the Rise

Halli Brownfield — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:30:40 GMT

The Wisconsin Law Journal reports that a new type of medical malpractice lawsuits are on the rise. These suits allege hospital negligence in failing to prevent hospital acquired infections. Multi-million dollar awards have been reported in these types of cases. Last month, a jury awarded a $13.5 million verdict involving a Massachusetts woman who died from a flesh eating bacterial infection she acquired while undergoing cancer treatment. A Utah woman also entered into a confidential $16 million settlement last month to resolve a lawsuit she filed alleging that a hospital failed to catch a flesh-eating bacteria that caused her to lose three limbs and several organs.

Lawyers and the medical community are debunking the myth that these infections are not preventable. The Centers for Disease and Prevention Control (CDC) estimates that over 2 million hospital acquired infections occur annually and are responsbile for 90,000 deaths. While not all these infections are necessarily the resut of negligence, the founder and chair of the non-profit patient safety organization Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, Betsy McCaughy, has explained that "the evidence is overwhelming that nearly all infections are preventable."

The standard of care governing prevention of these infections is evolving. The CDC has published guidelines for preventing these infections. Another non-profit that evalutes and accredits health care programs, the Joint Commission, has released its own set of strategies for preventing infections. As Ms. McCaughy puts it, "hospitals that don't follow the proven protocols are inviting lawsuits."

For more information, see

http://wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/12/01/Hospital-infections-spread-so-do-lawsuits

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

New Nursing Home Quality Rating - Get Informed

Nick DiCello — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:58:31 GMT

The U.S. government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently instituted a quality rating system for all nursing homes that are eligible to receive federal funds through Medicare or Medicaid. The scoring is based on a 5-star quality rating system, with 5 out of 5 stars being the highest rating. The Five-Star Quality Rating System was created to help consumers, their families, and caregivers compare nursing homes more easily and help identify areas about which you may want to ask questions. The website is easy to use and offers other useful links and information.

Nursing homes are rated based on information obtained from health inspections and include certain results from recent inspections. The ratings also address staffing and other important quality measures such as how well the nursing home helps people keep their ability to dress and eat, or how well the nursing home prevents and treats skin ulcers. In addition to the ratings, consumers can compare a facility's performance with average national and state scores for specific quality measures. Now, anyone contemplating entering a nursing home or placing a loved on in a nursing home has access to the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Unfortunately, nursing home neglect and abuse is endemic. The Government's new rating system, however, provides an invaluable resource to the public. The more informed we become, the better able we will be to reduce neglect or potential abuse. Ultimately, a better informed public will put pressure on the industry to raise its standards.

Before deciding on a nursing home facility check out Medicare/Medicaid's Five-Star Quality Rating System.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello