May 25, 2013
3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 200
Lincoln, NE 68502 (map)
Phone: 402.475.7011
Toll Free: 800.714.3439

New W-Visa to Help Nursing Homes Fill Jobs

There are many jobs at nursing homes that even desperate unemployed Americans won’t consider because they are seen as too demanding.  A solution to this employment problem could be as simple as immigration reform, one of President Obama’s highest priorities.

A new visa, called the W-Visa, would cover low-skilled workers employed by a variety of non-seasonal industries, including long-term care. Beginning in 2015, the program would admit 20,000 workers, and then it will progressively go up in subsequent years with a cap of 200,000. The yearly allotment of available visas would vacillate based on factors such as the national unemployment rate. The W-Visa beneficiaries would be paid the same wages as American workers or industry-standard wages, and would be able to apply for permanent residency and citizenship.

The American Health Care Association urged lawmakers to allow nursing homes to employ more immigrant workers in order for nursing home operators to fill vacancies and to save money. Fred Benjamin, chairman of the Kansas Health Care Association and COO of Medicalodges Inc., addressed a Congressional panel about this issue.

“We’ve offered signing bonuses, set up tables in grocery stores, sent direct mail, posted job openings on the Web, even laundromats, and it’s still not enough to fill positions,” he said. “It’s tough work taking care of people…but we believe there are a lot of people from other countries who would gladly take these jobs.” said Fred Benjamin.

Disclosure Rule to be Later than Scheduled

   A controversial provision of the HITECH Act may very well not be finalized by the January 1, 2014 deadline.  Leon Rodriquez, Director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, stated during the Health Care Compliance Association’s annual conference that the deadline for the HITECH rule was now “fluid”, and he did not give any indication when the rule could be issued as the agency is still reviewing the comments it has received in regards to the rule.

   Under HIPAA providers are required to give people certain information about how their healthcare data has been shared.  Once this provision of HITECH takes effect it will allow a person to ask for a simple version of the existing HIPAA disclosure and a report that would include a wide range of information.  That information would include the names of the individuals who have accessed the health information and what those individuals did with the records.  Also under HITECH, the provider will only have 30 days to respond to the person’s request v. the current 60 days under HIPAA. 

   The American Health Care Association (AHCA) states that the current 60 day timeline should be maintained as it is impractical to believe that a provider can put together such a comprehensive report in that time period.  In addition, AHCA states that the aggregate access report requirement should be eliminated for long-term care providers due to the fact that in cases involving a nursing home resident, their health record will be comprised of both paper and electronic information from a variety of places such as the hospital, pharmacy, therapists and so on.  AHCA states that if not eliminated then it should be limited to just the system that that provider maintains and controls. 

   HHS received over 400 comments after the proposed rule was released in May 2011.  Some providers believe the rule should be eliminated due to it being excessively burdensome while other providers state that they feared a disgruntled patient could and would retaliate against any employees named in the access report. 

Trev Peterson to present at Business Bootcamp

May 21, 2013

Trev E. Peterson will be presenting to the Business Bootcamp on May 21, 2013 in Omaha.  Trev will cover the following topics:

  • Forming Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)
  1. Initial Considerations
  2. Drafting Articles of Organization
  3. Drafting the Operating Agreement
  4. Rights and Duties of buy cheap viagra Members
  5. Management Structure
  6. Assignments of Membership Interests
  7. Buy-Sell Provisions
  8. Security Interests
  9. Disassociation
  10. Dissolution and Liquidation

 

 

Anatomy of a Lawsuit Presentation

March 28, 2013
9:00 amto10:30 am

Jeanelle Lust and online viagra Kevin McManaman will be presenting “Anatomy of a Lawsuit” to the NEHCA on Thursday, March 28, 2013.

Nursing Home Litigation Presentation

March 22, 2013

Jeanelle Lust will be speaking on Nursing Home Litigation at the Annual 2013 Estate Planning and Probate Institute – Trust Us: Make of it

What You Will

Rambo Litigation Tactics Seminar

March 22, 2013

On

Friday, March 22, 2013 at 9 a.m., Jeanelle R. Lust will be speaking to the Young Lawyers Section of the NSBA on Rambo Litigation Tactics.

Gaps Continue to Exist in Nursing Homes Emergency Preparedness and Response During Disasters

In a recent study, the office of the inspector general concluded that:

Emergency plans lacked relevant information—including only about half of the tasks on the CMS checklist. Nursing homes faced challenges with unreliable transportation contracts, lack of collaboration with local emergency management, and residents who developed health problems. LTC ombudsmen were often unable to support nursing home

residents during disasters; most had no contact with residents until after the disasters.

While the study recognized that most nursing homes were complying with the federal regulations to develop a plan, the OIG was still concerned about these implementation problems.

Community Services Fund Welcomes New Board of Directors

Jeanelle Lust has been recently named the Vice-Chair of the

Board of Directors for Community Services Fund.  Please read more about this great honor at Journalstar.com:  http://journalstar.com/business/achievements/community-services-fund-welcomes-new-board-of-directors/article_6611cc52-0454-587f-a7c3-7c63aa5e6244.html

Can an Employee be Disciplined for Engaging in Political Speech in the Workplace?

Election season will be in full swing in a few short months, as in any election, there is a strong possibility that the contentious world of politics may spill into the work place.  If this happens, most of the time, it will likely be harmless banter among employees.  However, there is always the risk that things may get out of control and impede smooth operation.  Employers should be mindful of what they can and can’t do when politics enters the workplace.

When decoding whether an employee has a valid claim for being disciplined when engaging in political speech in the workplace, the first critical question is whether it is a public or a private employer.  If the employer is a public entity, courts will engage in a three part test to determine if the employee has a valid claim against the employer. If an employee’s speech is related to a matter of public concern, passes the court’s “balancing test”, and was not made pursuant to his or her official duties, the employee will have a claim against the public employer.

If an employer is a private employer, the analysis in the paragraph above goes out the window.  As a general rule, private employees have no federal constitutional protection when making political speech in the workplace.  Private employers can generally discipline an employee for making political speech on the job.

Like most rules, there are some exceptions.  All employers need to keep in mind that anti-discrimination laws still apply to speech based disciplinary actions, thus employers need to ensure

their political speech policies do not discriminate based on sex, national origin, religion or other protected areas.  Also, some states have laws and local ordinances that prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for engaging in behavior, such as political speech, that is protected by that state’s constitution.  Such laws are few and far between, and most of these statutes do not apply to political speech that occurs in the workplace, but human resources departments should look at the statutes and case law in their particular state when developing and enforcing such policies .

While private employees have no federal constitutional protection and very little state constitutional protection, private employees do have one major avenue of protection when it comes to workplace speech: the

National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA).  The protections for employee speech provided by the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees.  The National Labor Relations Board which reviews such cases says that employee speech is protected by the NLRA if it is (1) concerted, (2) about a work related object, and (3) protected.   Employee speech is concerted if it is “engaged in, with or on the authority of other employees and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.”  Note that this does not require official union activity or even talk of collective bargaining.  Employee speech is about a “work related object” if it is intended for mutual employee aid or related to wages, hours or other terms of employment.

Even if employee speech is concerted and about a work related object, it must also be “protected”.  Employee speech will not be “protected” if the employee’s actions are unlawful or overly disruptive.  Employers have to jump a relatively high hurdle to establish that an employee’s actions are not protected, however, and rudeness is not enough.  In most

cases, political speech involving elections will not be protected by the provisions of the NLRA but it is a good idea to keep it in mind.

Of course, employers should also consider issues such as employee morale and the feasibility of enforcement when crafting a policy on workplace political speech.  Employer policies should balance workplace efficiency with employee freedom.  For example, in most circumstances a policy could include a prohibition on political speech in areas within view or earshot of customers and limit the size and permissible locations of political buttons and posters.

In sum, most employers should familiarize themselves with the differing legal restrictions depending on whether they are public or private employers, and all should avoid restraining speech protected by the NLRA or local law.  Consulting with legal counsel is recommended before taking adverse employment actions based on political speech.

Clarification of the $1 Million Damages Cap under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act

On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court announced that parents of a minor child have their own claim separate and distinct from their minor child under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (2012).

In December 2000, Timothy Connelley took his daughters, Rachel, age five, and Chelsea, age ten, sledding in Memorial Park in Omaha, Nebraska. The park had recently undergone renovations which including planting new trees near a hill commonly used by Omaha residents for sledding. Rachel and Chelsea were sledding down the hill on a saucer sled when their sled veered into one of the new trees. Chelsea sustained injuries to her ribs and chest, from which she recovered. Rachel sustained a fracture dislocation of her spine, which resulted in permanent paralysis from the shoulders down.

Timothy and his wife, Kelly, filed tort claims with the City on December 27, 2001, pursuant to the PSTCA. They alleged that the City’s willful negligence proximately caused the injuries sustained by their daughters, and they sought damages for past and future medical expenses, loss of services, and emotional distress. They also challenged the constitutionality of the $1 million cap on damages imposed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-926. Later, Rachel and Chelsea, by and through their parents, filed a separate action which sought general damages arising from the same accident. They alleged that the City was both negligent and willfully negligent, and that § 13-926 was unconstitutional. The district court consolidated the daughters’ action with the parents’ previously filed action.

The Nebraska Supreme Court, in upholding both the negligence of the City and the contributory negligence of Timothy, clarified the application of the $1 million cap on damages. The Court disagreed with the City’s argument that the district court erred in determining that Rachel’s injuries triggered three separate damage caps—one for Rachel and one for each of her parents. The

City argued that the parents’ claims are “derivative” and “must logically be subsumed” in the $1 million cap applicable to Rachel’s tort claim. Id. at 150. In other words, the City sought to limit its liability under the PSTCA to $1 million for all claims arising from a single bodily injury. The Court disagreed, noting that “[t]he Legislature could have written the statute that way, but it did not. Instead, it imposed the $1 million cap on ‘any person for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence.’ Rachel and her parents are separate persons under § 13-926(1), as the parents’ claims are separate and distinct from Rachel’s claim. Therefore, Rachel’s claim and her parents’ claims are subject to separate damage caps.” Id. at 153. But while Rachel’s claim and her parents’ claims are subject to separate damages caps, the Court determined that the claims of Kelly and Timothy for medical expenses and loss of services are not separate and distinct. Rather, these claims are joint in nature as they were based on the same proof, and the parents could not each separately recover the full amount of damages for medical expenses and loss of services.

Thus, the parents’ claims are subject to a single damage cap of $1 million. Id. at 158-159.

With the Connelly decision, the Nebraska Supreme Court clarified the damages cap under the PSTCA and determined that the parents’ of a minor child have their own claim for medical expenses and cost of care separate and distinct from that of their minor child. This effectively means that in cases where a minor child is gravely injured, a political subdivision could be facing a total damages award of $2 million under the PSTCA, not $1 million.

Client Testimonial:

Jeanelle paid close attention to all the details and explained all the legal jargon to us so we were able to understand what was happening. We were very happy with her services and will always recommend her to anyone else that we hear of needing legal services.

A Satisfied Knudsen Client