April 28th, 2014

The Balisok Blog

A place where those who apply California’s Elder Abuse Act to address neglect and abuse of our parents and grandparents can support each other and explore the Elder Abuse Act’s possibilities.

Personal note:

I’ve seen the development of the law and the progression of judicial attitude toward elder abuse since I first began litigating elder abuse claims in 1983.  When I started, no one was taking these cases and certainly no one was taking them seriously.  There was no effective judicial remedy even for egregious conduct causing horrifying injury and despair.  Judges openly scoffed at lawsuits alleging such conduct.  With the enactment of the Elder Abuse Act in 1991, judicial attitudes slowly changed and such suits were welcomed where they had been rejected. 

Over time, the plaintiff’s bar became alerted to these changes in the law and judicial attitudes.  Annual conferences hosted by California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (“CANHR”) helped to improve the level of practice by the Plaintiff’s bar.  The defense bar scrambled to catch up and their level of practice has come to match or exceed the Plaintiff’s bar. 

This blog is a work in progress.  I hope to have a confidential space for registered participants, but until then, let’s see what we can accomplish together.

Thank you,

Russell Balisok

One thought on “The Balisok Blog

  1. Doug Fladseth Esq.

    Russ: Re the Clay case preempting H & S 1363.1 and the possible exception based on the Enrollment Form not having all the necessary information.

    I have such a case against Kaiser. The Enrollment Form was signed by the husband and wife in 2002 and as such is before the 42 USC 1995w-26(b)3 that is effective 12-8-03.

    The Enrollment Form says nothing at all about arbitration and so clearly violates 1363.1.

    Kaiser filed their Petition to Compel arbitration.

    The judge inexplicably sided with Kaiser. She apparently bought the defense argument that no signed agreement is needed. In our case not only did the victims not sign anything agreeing to arbitration but neither did anyone sign anything on their behalf. Even the EOC despite having signature pages is signed by no one other than the Kaiser rep.

    The 2013 Hawaii Supreme Court case of Siopes denied a motion to compel Kaiser arbitration under similar circumstances based on the lack of a contractual agreement or mutual assent to waive the right to jury trial.

    I am considering a writ or appeal or maybe even a motion for reconsideration since this just happened last week.

    Am wondering if you have tested these waters more formally.

    If you have any interest in getting involved.

    Is an abandonment case where after a knee replacement surgery which Kaiser said their 74 year old patient was fit for , the foreign trained hospitalist and others including the administration determined it was just sundowners and failed to care for or transfer to the ICU despite suffocating drops in the oxygenation for many hours. The CDPH has cited for the violations. Their own nurses could not get any doctor to come in. They were arrogantly blown off as the state confirms in its report. The wife and two daughters one of whom is a VA nurse were present and all subjected to NIED. [reckless IED].

    Thanks for your thoughts. Doug Fladseth 707-545-2600.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Doug Fladseth Esq. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>