(A smaller group received the letters asking for information.)īut in the meantime, the plaintiffs have compelled the chain, with 268 facilities across the country and 52 in California, to turn over a trove of documents showing how it determines staffing levels. The Sunrise case, with a “purported class” of 13,000 current and former residents in California, also awaits certification. Suits against two other chains, Aegis Living and Oakmont Senior Living, will proceed when and if courts certify them as class actions. The lawyers’ scorecard to date: two settlements reached in 2016, totaling $13 million from Emeritus Corporation (since merged with Brookdale Senior Living) and $6.4 million from Atria Senior Living. Sunrise called the claims “categorically false.” In an emailed statement, Sunrise denounced “baseless lawsuits like these, in which the plaintiffs’ lawyers file copycat allegations,” a reference to the firms having brought four previous suits using essentially the same tactics. “In this case, they’re taking their money.” “If you take an elder’s property, knowing it could harm them, that’s financial elder abuse,” Ms. Sunrise’s practices are unlawful in another way, as well, the suit charges.
“The business model is fraudulent, and it’s putting people at risk,” Ms. The suit claims that Sunrise is misrepresenting its practices and deceiving customers, in violation of state business statutes, and lacks enough trained staff members to deliver the care specified in resident contracts and marketing materials. “People pay more, but they’re not getting more care,” Ms. When assessments show increasing needs, the suit alleges, fees rise but staffing ratios may not change. Instead, the plaintiffs argue, administrators make staffing decisions financially, based on budgets and return on investment. District Court for Central California, argues that when staff members conduct such periodic assessments - to determine whether a resident needs help bathing or dressing, for example, or suffers from dementia - the facilities don’t use the results to determine an adequate number of staff members.
The plaintiffs’ complaint, filed in 2017 and now before the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
