Nursing Home/Assisted Living Facility Negligence - Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Nursing Home Is Not Itself A Health Care Provider For Purposes Of Florida Statute 766.102

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:16:33 GMT

Under Section 400.022, Florida Statutes (2025), nursing home residents are guaranteed specific rights. Licensed facilities must publish these rights and ensure that residents are treated in accordance with them. If a facility violates these rights and a resident suffers injury or death as a result, the facility may face legal proceedings.

Although nursing homes are obligated to provide care and services to their residents, they are not themselves considered “health care providers” under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2025). See NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991). This can prove consequential in legal proceedings as, among other things, claims brought under 766.102 are subject to onerous presuit requirements such as expert affidavits, notice, investigation, and informal discovery. See section 766.106.

Most harmful violations in nursing homes stem from the ordinary negligence of nonprofessional employees. Claims arising from such violations are not governed by Chapter 766, nor are claims against licensed professionals when the exercise of professional skill or judgment is not implicated.

Although a nursing home is not itself considered a health care provider under section 766.102, it may nonetheless be held vicariously liable for the acts of certain agents or employees who are. For example, the facility likely employs nurses licensed under chapter 464. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a facility may therefore be liable under the heightened professional standard of care when such an agent, actively involved in the incident, is rendering medical care or services.

Florida’s Wrongful Death Act bars recovery for lost parental companionship, instruction, and guidance, as well as for the mental pain and suffering of adult children over the age of 25, when the parent’s death results from medical malpractice. See section 768.21(8). This represents a unique carve-out from traditional common-law damages, applicable only in medical malpractice cases. It reflects a legislative policy choice rather than a principled public policy determination and is often referred to as Florida’s “Free Kill” law.

If a nursing home resident’s death results from ordinary negligence rather than medical negligence, the limitations of the “Free Kill” law do not apply.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Cause of Action Under “Assisted Living Facilities Act” Arising From Intentional Tort

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Mon, 01 Sep 2025 17:16:19 GMT

The purpose of the “Assisted Living Facilities Act,” contained in Chapter 429 of the Florida Statutes, is to

“promote the availability of appropriate services for elderly persons and adults with disabilities in the least restrictive and most homelike environment, to encourage the development of facilities that promote the dignity, individuality, privacy, and decisionmaking ability of such persons, to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of residents of assisted living facilities in the state, to promote continued improvement of such facilities, to encourage the development of innovative and affordable facilities particularly for persons with low to moderate incomes, to ensure that all agencies of the state cooperate in the protection of such residents, and to ensure that needed economic, social, mental health, health, and leisure services are made available to residents of such facilities through the efforts of the Agency for Health Care Administration, the Department of Elderly Affairs, the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health, assisted living facilities, and other community agencies.”

Section 429.01(2), Florida Statutes (2025)

Under Florida law, it is well established that an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional misconduct, including acts such as sexual assault or battery. Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904, 906 (Fla. 1953); see Trabulsy v. Publix Super Mkt., Inc., 138 So. 3d 553, 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting same).

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party responsible for the wrongful acts of another, even if the first party did not commit the act itself.

In employment law, it most often means:

An employer can be held liable for the negligent or wrongful acts of an employee if those acts were committed within the course and scope of employment, and in furtherance of the employer’s business.

It’s sometimes called respondeat superior (“let the master answer”).

If an assisted living facility cannot be held vicariously liable for the intentional misconduct of its employees, how then does the Act’s purpose remain fulfilled?

This question is critical because employees who commit intentional acts are typically excluded from liability insurance coverage and, in most cases, lack the personal financial means to satisfy a judgment. An alternative legal avenue must be crafted to ensure the employer is held accountable

The most direct path to liability is showing that the facility itself breached its duty to a resident by negligently hiring the offending employee, failing to properly supervise and monitor that employee, or by failing to implement adequate policies and procedures. Any such violation undermines and breaches the very purpose of the Act, and they rest on the employer’s own negligence, rather than on a theory of vicarious liability. The employer’s liability insurance will cover this tort.

A colleague recently asked for our thoughts on a lawsuit against an assisted living facility, premised on these principles, arising from the sexual assault of a resident by one of its employees. We agreed that the claim was on solid ground. The discussion reminded us of our successful lawsuit against a furniture store after one of its deliverymen brutally assaulted our client. In that case, we discovered the deliveryman had a prior history of assault and was widely regarded at work as a troublemaker. While the setting differed from an assisted living facility, the same legal principles applied.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida’s Nursing Home Statute Provides Remedy to Some Barred by Florida’s Wrongful Death Act

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 04 Jul 2021 15:50:10 GMT

I have railed at length in this blog against a Florida law that allows medical providers alone to avoid the same legal liability everyone else faces for causing the negligent loss of life. The offensive statute is section 768.21(8), Florida Statutes, which is part of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.

Section 768.21, entitled “Damages,” describes who is entitled to what in wrongful death cases. Subparts (3) and (4) provide as follows:

(3) Minor children of the decedent, and all children of the decedent if there is no surviving spouse, may also recover for lost parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. For the purposes of this subsection, if both spouses die within 30 days of one another as a result of the same wrongful act or series of acts arising out of the same incident, each spouse is considered to have been predeceased by the other.
(4) Each parent of a deceased minor child may also recover for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. Each parent of an adult child may also recover for mental pain and suffering if there are no other survivors.

Where the wrongful death resulted from medical malpractice, subpart (8) bars the recovery of “lost parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and for mental pain and suffering” of “all children of the decedent if there is no surviving spouse.” as otherwise allowed in subpart (3), and “mental pain and suffering” for “[e]ach parent of an adult child … if there are not other survivors” as otherwise allowed in subpart (4). Subpart (8) provides as follows:

(8) The damages specified in subsection (3) shall not be recoverable by adult children and the damages specified in subsection (4) shall not be recoverable by parents of an adult child with respect to claims for medical negligence as defined by s. 766.106(1).

(For purposes of this statute, an adult child is a child over the age of 25)

This simple paragraph has caused heartache upon heartache to a countless number of parents and children whose loved ones died from medical malpractice. Every week our office receives phone calls from disbelieving adult children and parents seeking a magical solution that doesn’t exist. Often, we are their fourth and fifth call. Sadly, the best we can offer are condolences and the suggestion they complain to Florida’s Governor and its state legislators. Not very comforting words.

Section 400.023, Florida Statutes creates an “exclusive cause of action for negligence or a violation” of the rights of residents of nursing homes and related health care facilities. See, 440.023(1). Interestingly, while residents may be harmed or caused to die by a failure to receive appropriate health care, section 440.023(1)(e) provides that “Chapter 766 does not apply to a cause of action brought under ss. 400.023-400.0238.” Chapter 766 contains Florida’s medical malpractice statutes. Hence, claims for wrongful death brought under ss. 400.023-400.0238 are not subject to the damage limitations of 768.21(8).

While the causes of action, in other words, the standards necessary for recovery, under each statutory scheme are different, it is sometimes difficult for the parties and the judiciary to tell them apart. See Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla.1993); NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Liles v. P.I.A. Medfield, Inc., 681 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). A party failing to properly do so may suffer serious negative consequences, up to having the case dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, as explained above, if it turns out that the facts make the case one of medical negligence rather than nursing home negligence, the surviving adult children and parents of a deceased victim may be denied a remedy. Accordingly, it is exceedingly important to understand the differences between the two causes of action.

In Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway, 840 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Supreme Court was presented with the following question certified by the district court of appeal as being one of great public importance:

If a plaintiff files a lawsuit seeking to enforce only those rights enumerated in section 400.022, must the plaintiff comply with the presuit conditions in section 766.106?

The district court, in Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway, 783 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), decided that because the plaintiff had chosen to allege a statutory claim under section 400.022 and not also allege a common law claim for medical negligence, she was not required to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997). In doing so, the Second District Court of Appeal observed that

Although there may be some overlap between the statutory right to “receive adequate and appropriate health care” and the common law claim for medical negligence, we conclude that the presuit requirements of chapter 766 must be narrowly construed to apply only to common law medical negligence claims and not to the separate statutory rights created by chapter 400. Compare § 400.022(1)(l), Fla. Stat. (1997), with § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).

Citing to the cases noted above, the court made the following comments:

In cases involving vicarious liability of nursing homes for the actions of their employees, determining whether the presuit requirements of chapter 766 are invoked has been a difficult task for the judiciary. See Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla.1993); NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Liles v. P.I.A. Medfield, Inc., 681 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In general, a plaintiff must comply with these conditions if it seeks to make a defendant vicariously liable for the actions of a health care provider under the medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1). See Weinstock, 629 So.2d at 838; Lake Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Clarke, 768 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). This complaint does not seek vicarious liability for the actions of a health care provider under a medical negligence standard.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s holding. Recognizing the importance and complexity of the issue, the court analyzed the elements of each cause of action. It made the following observations:

“[E]ach count of the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the nursing home failed to provide for the degree of care mandated by section 400.022. Since this claim relies upon the right to receive adequate health care and services from the nursing home, the plaintiff was required to (and in fact did) follow the presuit requirements within chapter 400.”
“[I]n order to determine whether the presuit requirements of chapter 766 apply, we look to whether the plaintiff must rely upon the medical negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1). In this case, the plaintiff is filing an action against the nursing home based solely upon the violation of the statutory obligations imposed by section 400.022. As section 400.022(1)(l) provides its own standard of care,^[8] the medical negligence standard of care and the corresponding presuit requirements of chapter 766 are inapplicable.”
“[S]ection 400.023 clearly demonstrates that the Legislature intended a nursing home to be liable for the ‘”failure to provide a resident with appropriate observation, assessment, nursing diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation of care by nursing staff.”‘ § 400.023(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). Accordingly, we do not find that the plaintiff has pled a medical malpractice cause of action against a health care provider which would require her to abide by the presuit requirements of chapter 766.”

While the Integrated case dealt with a pre-suit notice issue, its relevance to the subject of this blog involves the insightful discussion regarding the separate causes of action. As the Second DCA and the Florida Supreme Court noted, making the proper distinction can sometimes be difficult. With the right facts, survivors otherwise barred by chapter 766 can get their day in court for the wrongful death of a loved one.

**************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

Arbitration Clauses Enforceable in Florida Nursing Home Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:35:09 GMT

Much was published in 2011 by The Miami Herald in its multi-part exposé, Neglected to Death – see this blog, Nursing Home/Assisted-Living Facility Negligence – Shame on Governor Scott and Florida Legislature, for links to some of the articles – with regard to the horrible conditions existing in many of Florida’s nursing homes. One of the points made is that state regulators have been unwilling or unable to regulate the homes and punish the worst offenders.

Private lawsuits are another avenue for exacting punishment against negligent and grossly negligent operators. However, a common drawback to this remedy is that many of the homes operate without the financial means to pay for their negligence, by not maintaining adequate liability insurance and shielding themselves behind layers of shell corporations. This is certainly the case with many of the smaller facilities.

In recent times, another barrier has come in the way of fully and adequately punishing wrongdoers. Arbitration.

Traditionally, victims harmed by nursing home negligence have sought their remedy through the courts, with juries making the final call on the issues of fault and damages. Arbitration removes these decisions from citizen jurors, turning them over, instead, to costly arbitrators. Business interests prefer arbitration, which is looked upon with disfavor by victims’ lawyers.Arbitration of nursing home cases is not mandated by law. Rather, arbitration is something agreed upon by the parties. In the nursing home context, the arbitration agreement is typically contained in the package of admission documents. It is either signed by the nursing home resident or an authorized representative, usually a family member.

Courts generally favor arbitration agreements, Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 2005), but such agreements are subject to state law contract defenses such as unconscionability, Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). To succeed in an unconscionability argument, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be shown. Bland, ex rel. Coker v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So. 2d 252, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). If the arbitration agreement is not procedurally unconscionable, the court does not reach substantive unconscionability. Id. at 257; Eldridge v. Integrated Health Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 982, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Procedural unconscionability relates to the manner in which the contract was made. Bland, 927 So. 2d at 256. It involves issues such as the parties’ relative bargaining power and their ability to know and understand disputed contract terms. Id. A court can find a contract unconscionable if important terms are “hidden in a maze of fine print,” minimized by deceptive sales practices, or if the contract has a “take it or leave it” approach with an absence of meaningful choice on the part of the consumer. See Orkin Exterminating Co., 872 So. 2d at 265; Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

To determine if an arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable, “a court must look to the `circumstances surrounding the transaction’ to determine whether the complaining party had a `meaningful choice’ at the time the contract was entered.” Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (quoting Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F. 2d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1965)).

In Tampa HCP, LLc v Bachor, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals! 2nd Dist. 2011, a case involving the death of a nursing home resident where the admission papers were signed by her daughter, the court pointed to the following factors in finding that procedural unconscionability was NOT shown.

The admission paperwork was signed three days before the resident was admitted.
The daughter was not rushed to sign the admission documents or given misleading information concerning its contents.
The arbitration agreement was clearly labeled as such in large capital lettering at the top of the page.
The agreement did not contain any limitations on damages, discovery and appellate rights.
The agreement gave the daughter the right to have it reviewed by an attorney before it was signed and 30 days to rescind after execution.
Execution of the agreement was not a precondition to the furnishing of services to the resident.

Although not the remedy of choice of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, arbitration can nevertheless produce fair and just results. (Because of privacy issues, it is uncertain what outcome differences, if any, are realized through the two remedies, although it is believed that the jury system provides better results for victims. However, if nothing else, victims’ lawyers oppose arbitration on principle alone, as an abrogation of trial by jury.) Whenever you or a loved one has been harmed by nursing home negligence or abuse, a lawyer should be consulted as soon as possible.

************************************************

Nursing Home/ALF Abuse: Florida Republicans Fail Elderly/Infirm

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:36:22 GMT

Florida Republicans have controlled the state’s legislature and Governor’s office (Jeb Bush (1998-2006); Charlie Crist (2006-2010); Rick Scott (elected in 2010)) for more than 10 years. Their time in power has seen a decline in the rights and protections afforded Florida’s elderly and infirm. Bad legislation and funding cuts are the reasons for the decline.

The Republican policy of putting business interests before individuals explains the bad legislation and funding cuts. The beat goes on….

In its hard-hitting multi-part series, Neglected to Death, The Miami Herald exposes the sorry state of affairs involving Florida’s ALF/nursing home industry. (Here is a link to the newspaper’s latest story in the series, State of Failure.)

Examples since 2007:

Encouraged by Florida’s largest industry group, a dozen legislators came forward with 36 pieces of legislation to remove or weaken regulations – including parts of the Residents’ Bill of Righs that guarantees safety and protection to vulnerable adults. (This past legislative session saw 23 such bills.)
In 2009, lawmakers said that state regulators no longer have to report abuses and deaths to the Legislature, instead allowing them to keep the cases secret.
Republican lawmakers rejected a plan to crack down on rogue operators.
Saying they were too expensive, lawmakers blocked efforts to increase inspections by state agencies to once every 15 months.
AHCA inspectors – ACHA is the state agency charged with controlling conditions in the facilities – were stripped of the authority to call doctors to get residents removed from facilities, leaving the decision to the facilities.
During the 2011 legislative session, fellow Republicans tried to repeal a law sponsored by Sen. Mike Fasano requiring homes to carry life-saving heart devices. “It’s outrageous,” he said. “I shake my head in disbelief. The cost is minimal to what the cost of life is.

Some of those involved:

Sen. Rene Garcia. This Hialeah Republican chairs the Senate’s health committee. In this year’s legislative session, he pushed to cut back penalties to caregivers and reduce the state’s power to close troubled homes. Among the proposals was to strip the state’s power to revoke the licenses of homes with two or more Class I violations. His district includes more than 100 ALF’s – including some of the most heavily fined homes in Miami-Dade. Garcia received $8,100 from industry contributions.
Sen. Don Gaetz (R). He co-sponsored the 2009 bill taking away the requirement that adverse events be reported to the Legislature. This law also removed the authority of state regulators to have doctors decide if residents should be removed from facilities. When questioned by the Herald about this piece of legislation, Gaetz said, “I just don’t remember.”
Rep. Matt Hudson. This House Republican sponsored a bill in 2011 to remove the power of the state ombudsman to make yearly visits to facilities with a checklist to make sure they were safe for residents. Hudson argued that the ombudsman’s duties were duplicative of work already being done by AHCA. The Herald found that was not the case. Hudson received more than $5,000 in industry contributions.

Kudos to:

Sen. Mike Fasano (see above).
Republican Senator Ronda Storms. In response to a gruesome case of neglect, in 2008 she tried to pass sweeping legislation to stregthen ALF laws, including criminal background checks and penalties. Not only was her effort defeated, but some believe it created a backlash leading to a frenzy of legislation designed to weaken health and safety measures.
Most House and Senate Democrats. Though powerless to control the agenda, they fight the good fight.

Some motivating factors for legislation that favors industry over individuals:

Money. Since 2007, the ALF industry has invested more than $215,000 into the coffers of Florida politicians.
Tea-Party Mentality. Rep. Matt Hudson, above, said he believes in “less government.”
Laissez-faire. In economics, this describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention. According to Senator Fasano, in the 2011 legislative session, “the governor and lawmakers were all pushing to deregulate the professions.”

Carl Hiassen editorial (8/14/11): ALF’s foxes guarding the henhouse Update: The state begins to take action against ALFs. August 20, 2011 Miami Herald article.

************************************************************

Personal Liability Exposure of Nursing Home Director Under Florida Law

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 06 May 2011 08:59:41 GMT

In the wake of The Miami Herald’s excellent series, Neglected to Death (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3), on the dire health and safety issues associated with Florida’s nursing home/assisted living facility industry, this is a good time to discuss some legal propositions closely related to the subject.

The Herald series focused on the problems and the state’s role, through AHCA and law enforcement, to control the situation. It paid little attention to the important role the civil justice system can and does play in regulating the system.

Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals and/or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim. For instance, if a car crash victim claims damages against the driver for loss or injury sustained in an accident, this will be a civil law case.

In Florida, nursing home residents and their families harmed by negligence can bring claims through the civil justice system against those responsible for causing the harm. Such claims are brought under the parameters established by Chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes.

Even though victims may have the right to sue under Florida law, there is no guarantee of recovering compensation from the wrongdoers. This is because many of the facilities do not carry adequate insurance to cover losses or operate through a legal tangle of corporations and fictitious names designed to frustrate collection efforts.

Estate of Canavan v. National Healthcare Corp., 889 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), provides some assistance to those trying to collect for nursing home negligence. The case, involving a lawsuit brought by the estate of a deceased nursing home resident, allows victims’ attorneys to hold a company’s directors or statutory managers personally liable for policy-level decisions affecting the operation of a long-term care facility.The case has its detractors, who argue that it conflicts with Florida’s codified business judgment rule (BJR), which immunizes directors’ business decisions from claims founded on simple negligence. Florida’s BJR as codified in F.S. Sections 607.0831 and 608.4228.

Their arguments are legitimate, but until the legislature changes Chapter 400 or another Florida District Court of Appeal issues a decision supporting their position, Canavan is the law of the land. As long as Canavan controls, negligent nursing home directors will remain the target of civil trial attorneys. Because the threat of accountability can be a strong deterent, this is a good thing.

The value of a robust civil justice system should not be overlooked. Private attorneys, at no taxpayer expense, perform some of the same functions required of AHCA and law enforcement.

********************************************************

Contact us at 866-785-GALE or by email to learn your legal rights.

Nursing Home/Assisted-Living Facility Negligence – Shame on Governor Scott and Florida Legislature

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 01 May 2011 11:58:51 GMT

Kudos to The Miami Herald for exposing the widespread abuse and neglect of residents within Florida’s nearly 2900 nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, and AHCA’s failure to perform its mandate to regulate and punish the wrongdoers. NEGLECTED TO DEATH Part I; Part II; Part III.

It is a must read and will make your blood boil… unless, of course, you are Governor Rick Scott or one of his merry band of radical right-wing Republican legislators who are pushing to create laws designed to weaken rather than strengthen the rights of private citizens to hold bad facilites accountable.

These are some of The Herald’s findings:

70 People died from abuse or neglect since 2002.
1,732 Homes were caught using illegal restraints like ropes, locking residents in closets, and tranquilizing them since 2002.
Only 26 facilities closed down by AHCA since 2002. State regulators could have shut down 70 homes in the past two years for a host of severe violations – including abuse and neglect by caretakes – but in the end, closed just seven.
13,250 Police and rescue calls to a small enclave of ALFs in Broward County since 2005 – essentially one every four hours.
While the number of new homes has exploded across the state – 550 in the past five years – the state has dropped critical inspections by 33 percent, allowing some of the worst facilities to stay open.
Though the state has the power to impose fines on homes that break the law, the penalties are routinely decreased, delayed or dropped altogether. Consider: In 2009 AHCA could have imposed more than $6 million in fines, but took in just $650,000.

Now for what Rick Scott and his cohorts are seeking to enact: House Bill 661 and Senate Bill 1396 would cap non-economic damages at $250,000 in wrongful death cases involving nursing homes for the first time. It would also make it more difficult to obtain punitive damages, and prohibit naming an out-of-town owner or investor of a nursing home in a lawsuit.”There is nothing in [the bill] that helps nursing home residents, nothing that makes sure we can hold bad nursing homes accountable,” the Florida Justice Association’s executive director, Debra Henley, said after the hearing. (For the sake of full disclosure, I am a member of the Florida Justice Association.)

The Republicans scream for less government, yet they seek to impose restrictions on the rights of private citizens to hold wrongdoers accountable through the civil justice system. Through the civil justice system, private citizens, with the assistance of private attorneys, can prosecute bad acts at no expense to taxpayers, which is a far different scenario than spending tax dollars on AHCA and assistant state attorney salaries and investigation costs.

In rhetoric, at least, the scenario of less government and private citizen self-help would seem to fit squarely within the philosophy espoused by Republicans. However, when citizen self-help bumps against company profits, Republicans are quick to abandon principle.

For present-day Florida Republicans, at least, the mighty dollar rules.

**********************************************

Contact us at 866-785-GALE or send an email to learn your rights.