Updated: Tuesday, October 13, 2009

 

HomeHealthRecruiter.com, Inc.

Professional Home Health and Hospice Recruiting Since 2000

Home  About Us  Contact Us  Resource Center  Advertisers

Employers  Candidates  Send Resume  Refer A Colleague  Reference Check



Post-Acute Providers “Push Back” Against Inappropriate Discharges

 

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Office:  877-871-4062

Fax:  877-871-9739

E-Mail:  ElizabethHogue@ElizabethHogue.net

 

The Dailey Record, a newspaper published in Baltimore, Maryland, reported on January 8, 2008, that the former Medical Director at Deer’s Head Hospital Center, a chronic hospital on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Hospital and its “business director.”  The crux of the lawsuit is that the Hospital accepted discharged patients from the local acute care hospital who were not appropriate for admission.  When the Medical Director, Dr. Clark A. Morres, continued to object, he was ultimately fired.

Specifically, Dr. Morres claims that his medical judgment was overridden so that patients from nearby Peninsula Regional Medical Center whose acute care insurance benefits had run out, but whose conditions remained unstable, were admitted to the Hospital.  Dr. Morres further claimed that these admissions were detrimental to many patients.

Dr. Morres included an example of inappropriate admission practices in his lawsuit.  Patients whose laboratory and diagnostic tests were incomplete were nonetheless admitted to Deer’s Head.  In one example, Dr. Morres says that a patient who needed platelet transfusions that are not available at Deer’s Head was admitted anyway.  The patient was returned to Peninsula Regional Medical Center a few days later where the patient died.

It is, of course, important to note that this lawsuit was filed against Deer’s Head Hospital Center and its “business director.”   The acute care hospital from which patients were referred to Deer’s Head, Peninsula Regional Medical Center, and the discharge planners/case managers at Peninsula Regional are not defendants in the lawsuit. 

Nonetheless, there are important lessons for case managers/discharge planners in this case.  When case managers/discharge planners develop and implement inappropriate discharge plans, which is alleged in the lawsuit described above, they may be liable for negligence.

In order to prove that discharge planners negligently discharged patients, patients must prove all of the following:

-   Duty

- Breach

-  Cause

- Injury or damage

 Patients will lose their lawsuits if they fail to prove any one or more of the above.

Discharge planners/case managers owe patients a duty of “reasonable care.”    Practitioners can determine what others are doing by examining applicable national, as opposed to local or regional, standards of care.

Sources of national standards for discharge planners include:

-                    Conditions of Participation (COP’s) of the Medicare Program related to discharge planning

-                     Licensure and accreditation standards

-                   Court decisions

-                     Standards of professional associations, such as the Case Management

-          Society of America (CMSA) and other professional organizations

Discharge planners/case managers can breach their duty to patients in two (2) ways: (1) An act, i.e. doing something that they should not do; or (2) An omission, i.e. failure to do something they should have done.

The best way to define causation is in terms of “but for.”   “But for” the act or omission of the provider, the patient would not have been injured.  Causation can also be defined in terms of “foreseeability.”  If it was foreseeable that the patient would be injured or damaged by the breach of duty by the discharge planner/case manager, then there is causation.  If injury or damage was not foreseeable, there is no causation.  In other words, there must be a causal connection between acts and/or omissions by the provider(s) and injury or damage to patients. 

Patients must usually show that they were physically injured by providers.  Injuries that are emotional only will not usually satisfy this requirement, unless the patient can show that the conduct of case managers/discharge planners was extreme and outrageous.

With regard to negligent discharges, case mangers may be liable for negligence because they owe a duty to patients, according to Medicare COP’s and other standards of case management, to develop and implement appropriate discharge plans for patients.  Discharge planners/case managers may breach this duty when they refer patients who still need acute care to post-acute providers.  If patients are injured as a result, they may be able to prove that they were discharged negligently.

The pressure is enormous for discharge planners/case managers to discharge patients from acute care hospitals when their payor sources for acute care are exhausted.  Discharge planners, however, put their licenses on the line when they discharge patients to post-acute providers who cannot render appropriate care because patients’ clinical condition requires acute care.  The lawsuit described above may indicate that post-acute providers may begin to “push back” against these types of discharges.

(To obtain more information about this topic in a book entitled Case Management: Legal Issues, send a check for $30.00 that includes shipping and handling made out to Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. to: Fulfillment, 107 Guilford Drive, Summerville, SC  29483.)

©Copyright, 2008.  Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.  All rights reserved.  No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Elizabeth