Case Types -Nursing Home Care Giver Institution Abuse

New York Poor care and treatment provided by an adult home.

Lawsuit Case Against a NY Nursing Home

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' claims were based on the hazardous, degrading, filthy, and dangerous conditions, as well as the inadequate care and non-existent services at the home.

Trautz v. Weisman, 92 Civ. 0534 (SDNY 1992)

DAI filed a federal class action lawsuit against an adult home located in Rockland County. This case was brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985(3); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1986, 29 U.S.C. §794; the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, Sections 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution; and New York State common and statutory law.

A favorable settlement was reached in 1994. The defendants, while admitting no liability, agreed to pay plaintiffs' damages and attorney fees. The defendants also agreed to repair the deficiencies in the facility which had been identified by plaintiffs' expert.

There were three reported decisions in this case. The significance of these decisions are set forth below.

809 F. Supp. 239 (SDNY 1992):

42 U.S.C. §1983 - Plaintiffs successfully defeated motion to dismiss. Private operators of adult home could be "state actors."
819 F. Supp. 282 (SDNY 1993):

RICO - Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants engaged in a pattern of mail and wire fraud in order to maintain their operating certificate from DSS. As a result, the defendants were able to run their home without providing the services which were paid for by the residents and required by law. The defendants defrauded the residents out of their money and then reaped the benefits in terms of substantial profits. RICO is now a very effective addition to those claims which can be made against adult home operators who exploit their residents for profit.

42 U.S.C. §1985(3) - To state a valid claim under this statute, plaintiffs must show that the motivation behind the conspiracy was based on some racial, or perhaps other, class-based animus. Previously, courts around the country had ruled that people with disabilities could not constitute a class protected from such conspiracies. Now people with disabilities are protected from private conspiracies to deprive them of the equal protection of the laws.

846 F.Supp 1160 (S.D.N.Y. 1994):
PAIMI STANDING - The court held that DAI, may obtain "class-wide" injunctive relief based solely on its status as a PAIMI agency. The court stated that "should DAI prevail in its suit for injunctive relief, the practical effect may be indistinguishable from that of a successful class action for injunctive relief."