Clay Greene, the gay elder who was forcibly separated
from Harold Scull, his partner of 20 years, has obtained a settlement of his elder abuse lawsuit against defendant County of Sonoma, for six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The case, which was filed in Sonoma County Superior Court more than a year ago, was scheduled to go to jury trial this month. The timing of the settlement, right up against the trial date, indicates that the County only settled due to the pressure of the looming trial date.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which brought the lawsuit on Clay's behalf (together with The Law Office of Anne N. Dennis, and Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong) issued a press release that struck a cautionary note:

"What Clay and Harold lost can never be replaced, but this settlement brings a measure of justice to their story," said Amy Todd-Gher, Senior Staff Attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights,.... This victory sends an unmistakable message that all elders must be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that those who mistreat elders must be held accountable. Even as we celebrate this victory, however, we are deeply troubled that the County of Sonoma continues to refuse to take responsibility for their egregious misconduct and violations of the law in this case. We urge every citizen of Sonoma County to demand more oversight of the Public Guardian’s office. They need to be watched."

They need to be watched indeed. If you read the County of Sonoma's website, it says that the reason it settled the lawsuit was "to avoid costs associated with a lengthy trial." They added, "The County must manage taxpayer money prudently." Did they forget about justice and doing the right thing? The only errors that the County acknowledges relate to Clay Greene and Harold Stull's property:

"The County acknowledges that some administrative errors occurred in the handling and disposition of the plaintiffs’ property, which led to improvements in Public Guardian policies with respect to procedures for property disposition and case management. The County remains confident in its position that there was no discrimination in this case....."

They apologize for violating property rights but can't bring themselves to acknowledge they violated Clay's civil rights, as an elder, to be free from elder abuse, and as a gay man, to be free from discrimination. Sonoma County could have brought this episode to a more satisfactory resolution by admitting its mistake and promising it won't happen again. Instead, this case concludes with Sonoma County, which used to known just for fine wine, taking its place in the history of civil rights violators, alongside places such as Little Rock, Arkansas and Birmingham, Alabama.

By the terms of the settlement, only $25,000 of it relates to "property damage." By paying Clay Greene a very large settlement, that is as close as they come to admitting the magnitude of their mistakes. A large settlement for a huge injustice.

To read the press release by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, click here.

To read the press release by Sonoma County, click here.

Felicia Curran
www.ElderAdvocacyLaw.com
www.ElderAdvocacyBlog.com

If there was a contest for "Worst Place For (Gay)Elderly to Live," Sonoma County, California would have to be on the short list, based on what they did to two elderly gay gentlemen, Clay Greene and Harold Scull, pictured here in happier times. Clay Greene was living in his home in Sonoma County, with his partner of 20 years, Harold Scull. Harold, then 88 years old, fell and was hospitalized. What happened then is every elder person’s – and gay person’s – worse nightmare. The County sprung into action, removing Clay from his home, and sending Clay and Harold, against their will, to separate nursing homes.

Although Clay and Harold had wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other as their responsible persons, the County even obtained court orders preventing Clay and Harold from seeing each other. The County sold their belongings at auction, and as reported by Scott James of the New York Times, removed the men’s cats from their home, right in front of Clay Green. Clay is still haunted by the scene. “When Clay M. Greene remembered the events of June 2008, he clenched his teeth, his hands tightened into fists and his body shook. They grabbed them by their necks and tossed them in a car,’ he said last week, recalling the fate of his beloved cats, Sassy and Tiger. He never saw them again.” Harold died in the nursing home, a few months later. With the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis, of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home

According to Kay Kendall of the Bilerico Project, all Clay has left from his life together with Harold is a photograph. The rest was destroyed by the County.

Clay Greene has decided to strike back against this despicable and egregious conduct, and is suing Sonoma County for violation of his civil rights – as an elder and as a gay man – in a lawsuit that will go to trial in July. Clay is from a generation that was forced to live their lives behind closed doors, so he does not use the term “gay” to describe himself, or the term “same sex partner” to describe his relationship with Harold. By standing up for himself, though, he will vindicate the rights of senior citizens in general and gay senior citizens in particular who live in fear that the same thing could happen to themselves.

To read the New York Times article about Clay Greene, click here. To read Kay Kendall’s article in Bilerico, click here.

You can learn more about the lawsuit, by visiting a Facebook page set up by Clay's supporters: www.facebook.com/JusticeForClay?v=app_2347471856

Felicia Curran
www.ElderAdvocacyLaw.com

Reporter Christina Jewett of California Watch has posted another article,"Why Is State Only Collecting One Third of Nursing Home Fines?" Jewett (pictured to the right) analyzed data from the State that shows that the California Department of Public Health -- the agency that licenses and has oversight over California nursing homes -- is letting nursing homes avoid or delay payment of fines imposed for breaking state law. Fines are the price the nursing home must pay for violating the law -- hence no fine, no penalty.

Jewett connects the trend in decreased collection of fines (In 2005 the state collected 60% of fines against nursing homes but by 2008 they only collected 30% of the fines) to a 2004 change in the law (AB 1629) which lets the nursing homes hire lawyers to fight the fines and bill the State for the cost of their legal fees. The nursing home can delay paying the fine by filing a legal challenge and if they lose, bill the State for the cost of their legal fees. The 2004 thus gave nursing homes an incentive to challenge and delay payment.

To locate and contact your State Senator and State Assemblyperson, and demand a change, click here.

To read Jewett's article, click here.


Felicia Curran
www.ElderAdvocacyLaw.com

File this under “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Remember a law California passed in 2004, designed to provide California nursing homes with additional MediCal money? This law -- The Nursing Home Quality Care Act -- was passed to address nursing homes’ complaint that the homes are understaffed because they simply cannot afford to hire more staff or to pay more wages. Under this law, the state’s 1,100 nursing homes received an additional $880 million in funding during 2004-2008, to hire more staff and pay better wages. Reporter Christina Jewett (pictured at the right) of California Watch has done a study, Nursing Homes Received Millions While Cutting Staff, Wages to see whether the additional funding to nursing homes has resulted in better staffing and salary levels. Jewett reports that 232 of 645 nursing homes receiving the extra funding either cut staffing, reduced wages, or violated state law minimum staffing level laws. These same nursing homes had fatter profit margins than other California nursing homes.

Jewett was also able to show a further correlation – the nursing homes receiving the extra funds that made the steepest staffing cuts also had about 30% more “deficiencies” (violations of State Title 22 licensing regulations) than the average California nursing home.

One other interesting fact in the article, “Nursing homes are allowed to bill the state for legal fees spent fighting abuse and neglect citations and lawsuits. They can bill for legal fees spent fighting audit findings they disagree with.” In other words, your tax dollars are going to help nursing homes hire lawyers to defeat elder abuse lawsuits and to challenge state officials who find the nursing home to be breaking the law.

The California Watch articles are mandatory reading for anyone with a family member in a California nursing home or anyone with a lawsuit against a California nursing home. The California Watch website contains data for each of the 232 nursing homes on the list (organized by county and by facility name). Check to see if your nursing home is on the list -- if it is, it should be a red flag to you that the nursing home is compromising staffing or wages for the sake of corporate profits. If you are prosecuting a lawsuit against a nursing home who has fattened its profit margin while cutting its staff, the data will help you build your case that the nursing home was reckless, willful or malicious under the California Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.

Felicia Curran
www.ElderAdvocacyLaw.com