About the Firm

History & Personnel

Houck & Balisok is a law firm founded in 1984 by Alden F. Houck (d. 1988) and Russell S. Balisok. Mr. Balisok was born in 1946 in Los Angeles. He was admitted to practice in the State of California in 1975 after receiving his law degree that year from Southwestern University School of Law.

Associate Mr. Steven C. Wilheim graduated magna cum laude from Southwestern University School of Law in 1997. Before attending law school he completed an 8 year period of service to Houck & Balisok as a law clerk.

Associate Patricia Canner graduated magna cum laude from Southwestern University School of Law in 2000, and joined Balisok & Houck that same year.

Historically, Mr. Balisok’s practice has focused on issues arising from business and real estate transactions. These cases included disputes regarding contract, partnership, commercial, over title to real property, and the use of real property. However, his interest in nursing home quality of care litigation stems from the early 1980s when he handled his first case of serious elder abuse. Since that time the focus of the firm’s practice has increasingly been the litigation of cases of abuse of our elders by the skilled nursing facility. Now, Mr. Balisok devotes nearly all of his practice to the review and litigation of serious cases of abuse and neglect of our elderly in California nursing homes and board and care facilities. The firm is also interested in cases of abuse and neglect by Health Maintenance Organizations, and the physicians they employ.

Mr. Balisok contributed a chapter entitled Actions Against Skilled Nursing Facilities to California Elder Law, An Advocate’s Guide (CEB 1993), and has updated his chapter each year since.

Mr. Balisok has since 1989 assisted California Advocates for Nursing Reform, Inc., in its effort to educate and encourage other lawyers to take such cases, by presenting seminars to other lawyers. In 1998 he was invited to help organize and present seminars to lawyers on behalf of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar on the subject of elder abuse litigation.

Litigation

Reported cases in which Mr. Balisok has participated as counsel are as follows:

Jongepier v. Lopez (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 535 (action in mandamus to compel California Department of Health Services to comply with Health & Saf. Code regarding complaint response inspections of nursing homes).

Nivison v. Burney (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 433 (action seeking damages for wrongful alteration of employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA).

Johnson v. Haberman & Kassoy (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 1468 (established exception to application of to the statute of limitation at California Code of Civil Procedure §340.6 for breach of attorney’s fiduciary duty of full disclosure in 6-year old legal malpractice case).

ARA Living Centers Pacific v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4^th 1556 (examined retroactive application of the remedies afforded under California Welfare & Institutions Code §15657, which is part of legislation designed to provide a meaningful remedy to elders and their families for abuse and neglect).

College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4^th 704 (reinterpreted C.C.P. §425.13 to require only substantial evidence -- instead of “substantial probability” -- of malice, fraud or oppression before being allowed to plead punitive damages against health care provider).

California Association of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services (1997) 16 Cal. 4^th 284 (examined application of defenses available to skilled nursing facilities in regulatory enforcement actions against nursing homes).

 Regency Health Services v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4^th 1496 (examined whether guardian ad litem for mentally incompetent individual is required to make discovery under the California Discovery Act).

Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal. 4^th 23 (examined the question whether California Welfare & Institutions Code §15657 -- the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act -- applies to actions against licensed health care providers).

Barris v. County of Los Angeles (1999) 20 Cal. 4^th 101 (examined whether California’s malpractice “reform” laws which limit pain and suffering damages to $250,000 should apply to claims of intentional tort or reckless conduct).

McCall v. Pacificare of California (1999) -- Cal. App. 4^th -- (examined whether federal Medicare law provided exclusive remedy to plaintiffs suing HMO in state court under state law, and also determined that provider group contracting with HMO is liable under non-standard fraud theory for their failure to disclose conflict of interest arising from a capitation arrangement).