Not all nursing homes are the same. There are many facilities with hardworking caretakers who are dedicated to giving the best care they can to their elderly residents. But unfortunately, there are nursing homes in this country that use the system for their own benefit at the expense of the sick and elderly in their care. As nursing home abuse attorneys, we have noticed more for-profit facilities taking these shortcuts for a financial gain.
Downside to For-Profit Facilities
These facilities will overbill Medicare for expensive care they should be providing and then cut corners to pocket the profits. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 30% of claims to Medicare from for-profit homes were found to be false, verses the 12% of false claims from not for profit homes. As both the amount of nursing home abuse cases and the number of for-profit homes grow, it is hard not to see a connection.
There is only so much federal funding available for the Medicare program. Obviously then, this limited budget is prematurely depleted when nursing homes abuse their position and cheat the system. By charging for treatment that isn’t or doesn’t need to be provided, guilty facilities are stealing from the innocent sick and elderly who may not get the care they need because of limited resources. Also, profits made by private homes go to the home’s investors rather than back to the resident care, like in nonprofit homes. When the facility’s main priority is making money rather than the well being of the elderly patients, abuse is more likely to occur.
Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or your loved one have suffered nursing home abuse, negligence, and inadequacy in a for-profit facility it’s time to contact nursing home abuse attorneys. The team at Messa & Associates is dedicated to earning justice and compensation for those injured by negligence and abuse in nursing homes and long term care facilities. Call, toll-free, 1-800-MessaLaw, or submit a free online inquiry. If you would like immediate assistance, click the CHAT LIVE icon to the right. A representative is present right now to answer your questions.
Health Affairs, the leading journal of health policy and research, founded in 1981 to support health policy education in the medical community domestically and worldwide, recently published the results of a study involving the cost of 
Medical malpractice attorneys have traditionally believed that the use of electronic medical records would actually decrease the number of medical mistakes and other prescription errors. With the increase in technology, medical malpractice attorneys thought that doctors and nurses would be better equipped to avoid preventable mistakes and injuries and reduce the potential for civil lawsuits. It is easy to see why people thought that better technology would help healthcare providers avoid unnecessary medical malpractice. Doctors, who are notorious for poor handwriting, would not have the same problems communicating data to others in patient charts, the equipment could monitor drug prescriptions to avoid dangerous mixtures, and hospital workers could be alerted easily of particular patient conditions without the hassle of digging through charts. However, many studies are now showing that the expected benefits of the new healthcare technology are not coming to fruition as fast as expected, if at all. The Institute of Medicine has also highlighted numerous dangers that could lead to malpractice and cause patients severe injuries. The report stated “although the magnitude of the risk associated with health IT is not known, some examples illustrate the concerns. . . Dosing errors, failure to detect life-threatening illnesses, and delaying treatment due to poor human-computer interactions or loss of data have led to serious injury and death.”
At the second hospital, doctors found an arteriovenous malformation on her thoracic spine. Professionals found that even after surgery, Hairston’s spine was still 
Under the respondeat superior theory, a theory that applies to many employer/employee relationships, the healthcare provider must be employed by the hospital. In order for a hospital to be liable under respondeat superior, the negligence must occur 
The main goal is to determine whether the law is truly holding only negligent doctors liable while finding that on occasion, bad results do occur in the medical profession even when good doctors are providing treatment. Lawyers believe that the possibility of legal resolutions and potential lawsuits should result in doctors using safer procedures, better diagnostic tests, and more extensive fact finding before providing treatment. The law should also urge doctors to follow the “customary practice” standard which would discourage doctors from using untried and dangerous treatments as opposed to what is generally acceptable in the field. Finally, it is the hope of patients and medical malpractice attorneys alike that the possibility of a lengthy litigation process will push doctors to adapt and change with the profession rather than sticking with their old ways when new approaches are readily available.
Expert testimony is not necessary to prove a plaintiff’s case when the negligent conduct of the doctor was a matter of common knowledge. One example that constitutes a “matter of common knowledge” is all too frequent in medical treatment today. This example involves a surgeon who negligently leaves a foreign object inside of a patient, such as a sponge, following a medical procedure. Expert testimony is not necessary to prove that the doctor breached his duty to the patient when he began the procedure. A layperson 
This category of the law has spread in recent years and in different jurisdictions across the United States, other individuals have been able to claim loss of consortium. Some of these individuals include parents, grandparents, and children. It is crucial for lawyers to know the common law in the jurisdiction in which they practice because