Judge says lawsuit against health department can proceed over missed nursing home inspections
The U.S. District Court in Baltimore. (File photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters)
A group of nursing home residents can press their lawsuit against the Maryland Health Department over lapsed nursing home inspections, and the case can proceed as a class-action suit, a federal judge has ruled.
Those findings came after U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Maddox denied the department's request to dismiss the case.
In that April 22 ruling, Maddox approved 'class certification' for nursing home residents 'who have disabilities and mobility impairment, and who live in nursing facilities' overseen by the Department of Health. Some 9,000 Marylanders fit that description and will be represented as the case continues, according to Justice in Aging, one of the advocacy groups leading the lawsuit.
'At this early stage of the litigation, the Court finds the facts alleged in the Complaint sufficient to draw a chain of causation between MDH's oversight and enforcement failures and Plaintiffs' particularized and unique injuries and risks as mobility-impaired residents of nursing facilities,' according to Maddox's opinion. 'Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint … shall be denied.'
Attorneys representing five nursing home residents filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for Maryland last May against the Health Department and its then-secretary, Laura Herrera Scott. The lawsuit alleges that the state's failure to conduct annual nursing home inspections, as required, has led to substandard care for residents of those facilities.
'It's a very positive step that we survived the motion to dismiss and provided sufficient evidence to the court for class certification,' said Liam McGivern, an attorney at Justice in Aging, while noting that there is still a long court process ahead.
Health officials cut inspection backlog of nursing homes, advocates demand more
The complaint asks the court to force the department to conduct nursing home surveys on the federally required 12-month schedule and ensure that complaints issued against nursing homes are answered in a reasonable time frame. It also asks for attorney's fees and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
With its motion to dismiss rejected, the department has until May 20 to respond to the complaint. A department spokeperson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Maddox's ruling comes at a time when the health department is actively working through a years-old backlog of nursing home inspections. The department said it is making progress, with more than half of the state's 220 nursing homes receiving an annual inspection within the last 16 months.
But with some facilities being more than four years overdue for an inspection, advocates fear that some Maryland seniors may be languishing in unsafe living conditions while the state plays catch-up.
'They're still woefully behind,' McGivern said. 'When complaints are not timely investigated, it often means that they'll never be meaningfully investigated … The backlog is so bad when the state finally gets around to investigating a complaint months or years later, they're not really able to adequately conduct that investigation — records are lost, residents have moved on, staff have moved on, the facility has changed ownership'
The initial court complaint outlines some nursing home residents' troubling experiences in their facilities, some of which had not been inspected by the health department for four years. The plaintiffs have mobility-related disabilities and rely on nursing staff for moving around the facility, eating and personal hygiene. The lawsuit alleges that residents were often left unattended for extended periods, leaving them isolated from community events or sometimes left in soiled clothing for hours, among other concerns outlined in the lawsuit.
'When the state does not go in to survey and make sure that nursing facilities are doing what they're supposed to be doing, that falls most harshly on people with mobility impairment – and so, discriminates against them within the meaning of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act],' McGivern said. 'They have no way to remedy, for example, their call not being answered or the facility not helping them leave their beds, leaving them confined and isolated in their room.'
In the time that has passed since the initial court filing, one plaintiff has died, a 75-year-old identified by the pseudonym 'Herman Dressel.' The complaint said Dressel had mobility limitations that required staff assistance bathing, dressing and getting in and out of bed. But as with other plaintiffs in the case, he did not receive the daily support to help him move about the day and receive the incontinence care that was expected for his services.
McGivern noted they are not claiming that his March 30 death 'is the result of any lack of oversight,' but should be a reminder of the vulnerable people who are at the center of the lawsuit.
'Often times, it seems that the issues that arise in a nursing facility are in the shadows,' he said. 'There's not any light shown on them and a lot of that has to do with the fragility of some people in nursing facilities who aren't able to raise these issues for themselves and who unfortunately often times die while waiting on the state to investigate their claims, or that complaint. That is quite common, I'm afraid.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca sues Utah attorney general over new drug pricing law
AstraZeneca, a major pharmaceutical company, has sued Utah's Attorney General Derek Brown over a recently passed state law allowing for lower pricing in pharmacies. The lawsuit concerns how SB69, passed during the 2025 state legislative session, deals with Section 340B of the federal Public Health Service Act. The suit was filed in May in the U.S. District Court of the District of Utah. The lawsuit argues that SB69 violates federal law by expanding the 340B drug discount program to unlimited pharmacies. The 340B drug discount program is designed to provide pricing benefits to specific eligible health care entities. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer products at steeply discounted rates for a specific list of entities. 'Because such price controls can disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets, Congress carefully crafted Section 340B and limited participation in the program to fifteen — and only fifteen — types of covered entities," per the lawsuit. It also points out that for-profit pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walgreens, were not included in the list of covered entities. AstraZeneca's suit seeks for an order declaring that SB69 violates federal law and is unconstitutional. It also seeks to stop Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike from enforcing SB69 against AstraZeneca in any manner. The Utah Attorney General's Office said Friday it had no comment on the lawsuit. SB69, which was sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, defines terms related to the 340B drug discount program and prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from setting certain restrictions. Under the law, manufacturers cannot prohibit or restrict pharmacies from contracting with 340B entities. They also cannot deny these 340B entities access to specific drugs. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' per the suit. 'The state law requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' The suit says that SB69 extends Section 340B price caps beyond the scope of the federal program, requiring manufacturers to make discounted drugs available for sale at any and all pharmacies 'authorized by a 340B entity to receive the drug.' It alleges that the law extends the discounts to new categories of transactions that are not covered by the program, thus conflicting with federal law requirements. The suit argues that the law conflicts with federal law, specifically court rulings that 'make clear that the federal 340B statute does not obligate manufacturers to deliver discounted drugs to unlimited contract pharmacies." According to the suit, SB69 also violates federal patent law, which 'prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods.' 'It requires manufacturers like AstraZeneca to offer steeply discounted prices for the sale of their patented drugs, thereby extending federal price caps to an additional category of patented drug sales (contract pharmacy sales) that federal courts have held fall outside of the 340B program. It also argues that SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's takings clause.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
11 ICE Officers Are Stuck In A Shipping Container In Djibouti
A group of 11 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and eight migrant detainees are stuck in a shipping container in Djibouti after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting immigrants to third-party countries without due process. The group's plight was described in a filing in U.S. District Court on Thursday, where Melissa Harper, a senior ICE official overseeing deportations, said they're currently being housed in a converted shipping container on the U.S. Naval base in Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. 'This has been identified as the only viable place to house the aliens,' said Harper. According to Harper, the daily temperature outside exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit. At night, Djibouti ignites burn pits near the base to dispose of trash and human waste, creating a lingering smog cloud. Upon their arrival, defense officials also warned the group 'of imminent danger of rocket attacks' from terrorist groups in nearby Yemen. Harper said members of the group have fallen ill and complained about a lack of medical equipment, including testing for what agents described as upper respiratory infections, all developed within 72 hours of landing. (The U.S. Department of Defense, which operates the base, might contest that description, having reportedly supplied the agents with Augmentin (an antibiotic), Azithromycin (another antibiotic), Doxycycline (a third antibiotic), Prednisone (steroid), inhalers, Zyrtec (treats allergies), Tylenol (pain and fever reliever), Motrin (pain reliever), Benadryl, Mucinex, Sudafed, nasal spray, and eye drops.) While showers are available to both the ICE agents and the migrants, Harper complained they're only available every other day. The three ICE officers originally assigned to the deportation flight were replaced on May 27 with an expanded team of 11 officers and two medical support staffers, who Harper said will also soon be swapped out for a fresh team. Which means the only members of the group consistently being subjected to the inhospitable conditions of Djibouti are the migrants. Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the deportees, told the Washington Post they're increasingly concerned about the conditions they're being held in, especially if they're being shackled. The detainees, who hail from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam, were quietly flown out of the country more than two weeks ago, violating the orders of a federal judge barring the government from deporting people to a third-party country — a nation other than the U.S. or their nation of origin — without first giving them a meaningful chance to contest it. Lawyers for the migrants said in court documents that they were given just hours before they were deported, instead of 15 days as directed by the judge. As a result, the flight, originally bound for South Sudan, instead got stuck in Djibouti. It's unclear if DHS attempted to deport the migrants to their countries of origin before settling on South Sudan. Federal law prohibits deporting migrants to countries that are unsafe or where they could be persecuted. It's also unclear why ICE would continue to subject the group to inhospitable conditions when they could simply return to the United States for the requisite hearings. The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a question to that effect. Instead, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughin lambasted the U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy on social media, accusing Murphy of 'putting the lives of our ICE law enforcement in danger by stranding them in Djibouti without proper resources, lack of medical care, and terrorists who hate Americans running rampant. 'Our @ICEgov officers were only supposed to transport for removal 8 *convicted criminals* with *final deportation orders* who were so monstrous and barbaric that no other country would take them. This is reprehensible and, quite frankly, pathological.' Read Harper's sworn declaration, below: Judge: U.S. Officials Must Keep Control Of Migrants Sent To South Sudan Trump Administration 'Unquestionably' Violated Deportation Order, Judge Says White House Confirms Trump Is Exploring Ways To 'Deport' U.S. Citizens People Are 'Disappearing' Since Trump Took Office. Here's What That Means.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
New Ruling Moves Oregon Closer to Legal In-Home Psilocybin Use
A lawsuit seeking the development of in-home psilocybin services for individuals with disabilities in Oregon will continue after a U.S. district court denied a motion to dismiss on May 30. The case could set an important precedent for future drug laws and accessibility for all Americans, including those with disabilities. In 2020, 56 percent of Oregonians voted in favor of the Oregon Psilocybin Services Act (Measure 109), which directed the Oregon Health Authority to license and regulate psilocybin products and services for individuals aged 21 and older. While a handful of cities in the U.S. had previously decriminalized psilocybin, Oregon was the first state to both decriminalize and create a legal regulatory framework for its supervised use. After two years of rule drafting, the OHA began accepting applications in 2023 for licensed psilocybin service centers, which are regulated facilities where psilocybin can be administered. Rather than focus on selling a product, service centers are geared toward health and wellness and are designed to offer support before, during, and after psilocybin use by licensed service facilitators. This model opened up psilocybin use for most Oregon residents but makes accessing psilocybin services impossible for individuals unable to leave home because of a disability. To fix this oversight in the law, four practitioners licensed by the state to guide people through psilocybin experiences have alleged that the current OHA process fails to reasonably accommodate those with disabilities as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cusker et al v. OHA was filed after the OHA denied the plaintiffs' request for a process to be developed for in-home psilocybin services to people with disabilities who are unable to visit service centers. In response to the request, state attorneys argued that "there is no legal pathway to make accommodations for psilocybin to be consumed outside of a licensed service center" and that Measure 109 "would need to be amended for accommodations to be permitted." Although the measure only allows the use of psilocybin under facilitator supervision at a service center—which has to comply with specific location requirements, including stipulations prohibiting a center from being located within "the limits of an incorporated city or town" or in areas "zoned exclusively for residential use"—others believe the OHA has the authority and flexibility needed to interpret the language consistent with ADA requirements. But the OHA has declined to address the issue through rule making. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon since the claim revolves around the OHA violating the ADA, a federal law. While psilocybin was decriminalized and legally regulated under Oregon law, it remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The OHA filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case because plaintiffs were asking the court to violate both state and federal law. The federal court would have to order the OHA to break federal law if it required the agency to produce, possess, or administer a Schedule I drug. The OHA also argued that the court would have to order a violation of Oregon's Controlled Substances Act if it required the agency to dispense psilocybin outside of a service center. Ultimately, the court denied the OHA's motion to dismiss, relying on case law involving a non-ADA-compliant marijuana dispensary. In Smith v. 116 S Market LLC (2020), Michael Smith, who is paraplegic, encountered difficulty accessing a dispensary due to a lack of accessible parking spaces, uneven ground between the parking lot and entry, and a noncompliant ramp. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Smith, granting him $4,000 in statutory damages for each encounter, under the rationale that the decision did not force the dispensary owner to distribute a Schedule I drug but merely required ADA compliance—which does not violate federal law. By adopting this reasoning, Cusker will be able to move forward. The post New Ruling Moves Oregon Closer to Legal In-Home Psilocybin Use appeared first on
