Thursday, March 27, 2014
NASGA on HB5573 (Illinois)
NASGA was asked to provide input regarding HB5573 which was recently introduced by Illinois Representative David Harris (53rd District) to protect Power of Attorney and Advance Directives.
NASGA Member and Director, Sylvia Rudek, consulted and worked with Representative Harris on this bill.
Below is NASGA's response to the Assistant Counsel to the Speaker.
NASGA Member and Director, Sylvia Rudek, consulted and worked with Representative Harris on this bill.
Below is NASGA's response to the Assistant Counsel to the Speaker.
Mr. Richard Stake, Jr.
Assistant Counsel to the Speaker
Illinois House of Representatives
Technical Review Unit
616 State Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
Dear Mr. Stake:
In preparing your analysis for Representative Harris’ bill, HB5573, NASGA believes it would be prudent to send you a short summary of case 2010 P 437. This case clearly illustrates the importance of protecting advance directives for all Illinois ‘adults’ with focus on the elderly and disabled adults from guardianship we believe is being abused and misused in a retaliatory manner.
In September of 2010, suffering from excruciating pain and severe nausea, Dolores Bedin was taken to the Emergency Room of a major Chicago hospital by her daughter, Janet, in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Health Care.
During this time, the patient, Dolores, learned the hospital failed to disclose CT scan results taken six months earlier as well as another set of results dating three years earlier, each showing a mass in her pancreas. The hospital failed to disclose that their own radiologists recommended (in a written report) specific further testing, which the hospital failed to perform over a three (3) year period.
The Hospitalist assigned to Dolores’ case (Dolores’ physician was not allowed to be active on her case) informed Janet that Dolores no longer met Medicare criteria (based on false statement) and that she would be discharged. Both Dolores and Janet vehemently disagreed with the discharge plan; but the hospital stood firm.
In order to be certain her daughter had every tool necessary to protect her and speak on her behalf, Dolores went the extra mile to better protect herself; she executed another Durable Healthcare Power of Attorney, naming Janet as her Attorney in Fact.
In response to Janet’s advocacy for her mother, the hospital retaliated against their patient, Dolores, and her PoA agent, Janet. The hospital repeatedly tried to persuade their patient, Dolores, to revoke her Power of Attorney. Dolores refused. Janet was threatened by 15 members of hospital staff and administration with a warning: if she did not accept their discharge plan for her mother, the hospital would take immediate action to take Dolores away from her and put Dolores under the control of the Public Guardian – and even worse - Janet would never see her Mother again.
In September of 2010, suffering from excruciating pain and severe nausea, Dolores Bedin was taken to the Emergency Room of a major Chicago hospital by her daughter, Janet, in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Health Care.
During this time, the patient, Dolores, learned the hospital failed to disclose CT scan results taken six months earlier as well as another set of results dating three years earlier, each showing a mass in her pancreas. The hospital failed to disclose that their own radiologists recommended (in a written report) specific further testing, which the hospital failed to perform over a three (3) year period.
The Hospitalist assigned to Dolores’ case (Dolores’ physician was not allowed to be active on her case) informed Janet that Dolores no longer met Medicare criteria (based on false statement) and that she would be discharged. Both Dolores and Janet vehemently disagreed with the discharge plan; but the hospital stood firm.
In order to be certain her daughter had every tool necessary to protect her and speak on her behalf, Dolores went the extra mile to better protect herself; she executed another Durable Healthcare Power of Attorney, naming Janet as her Attorney in Fact.
In response to Janet’s advocacy for her mother, the hospital retaliated against their patient, Dolores, and her PoA agent, Janet. The hospital repeatedly tried to persuade their patient, Dolores, to revoke her Power of Attorney. Dolores refused. Janet was threatened by 15 members of hospital staff and administration with a warning: if she did not accept their discharge plan for her mother, the hospital would take immediate action to take Dolores away from her and put Dolores under the control of the Public Guardian – and even worse - Janet would never see her Mother again.
Shortly thereafter, the hospital took action on their threats; they filed petitions:
1) Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Disabled Person
1) Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Disabled Person
(estate & person);
2) Petition to Invalidate, Suspend and/or Revoke Power of
2) Petition to Invalidate, Suspend and/or Revoke Power of
Attorney (healthcare); and
3) Petition For Temporary Guardian (estate & person)
3) Petition For Temporary Guardian (estate & person)
which would result in an emergency court hearing to
declare Dolores a ward of the state.
declare Dolores a ward of the state.
The hospital’s petition alleged that Janet failed to act for her mother’s benefit and refused to participate in appropriate discharge planning; that Dolores lacked the capacity to revoke Janet as her DPoA; and that Janet’s refusal to yield to the hospital’s demands put her mother in harm’s way because of the “increased risk of infection due to unnecessary continued hospitalization.” Fortunately, before the scheduled hearing, Janet found NASGA; we advised Janet to take her Mother home, warning her of the risks of litigation in guardianship matters. Janet removed her Mother from the hospital and in the end, her Mother ultimately avoided guardianship.
Upon Janet yielding to the hospital’s demands, the hospital withdrew their petition. The court sealed the entire court file, which we believe protected the hospital while covering up the great lengths the hospital took to retaliate against Janet and Dolores Bedin. (Dolores died a few months later of inoperable pancreatic cancer).
The court’s sealing of the complete record not only prevented Janet from securing court records and interfered with her legal standing to bring civil actions against the hospital and/or physicians, but it also prevented Dolores Bedin herself from accessing her own records. The sealing of the entire record was completely to the hospital’s advantage.
The court’s sealing of the complete record not only prevented Janet from securing court records and interfered with her legal standing to bring civil actions against the hospital and/or physicians, but it also prevented Dolores Bedin herself from accessing her own records. The sealing of the entire record was completely to the hospital’s advantage.
Dolores’ wishes, along with her legal documents, were not strong enough to protect her from the hospital’s legal aggression and attempted hostile takeover of her life and estate. The hospital could simply file a petition for ‘temporary’ guardianship with intent for total control of their patient, Dolores, and her estate and dispense with Dolores’ advocate daughter, Power of Attorney agent Janet, at the same time.
Had the hospital been successful, what would have become of Dolores? Predicting the outcome and the impact based on the direct threats made by the hospital itself to Janet, NASGA case studies, as well as the pattern from the numerous news articles along with the daily letters to NASGA, we believe Dolores likely would have been placed in a state facility, totally isolated from Janet, her family, and her friends until the day she died.
NASGA believes this highlighted example case shows the retaliation by a health care provider, a hospital, accomplished exactly what it intended. After Janet acquiesced to the hospital’s demands, all of the conclusory statements the hospital made (alleging Janet did not have her mother’s best interest at heart) suddenly didn’t matter to the petitioner. Dolores was quickly released to Janet’s care without any further inquiries or follow-up procedures by the hospital or any state agency.
Had the hospital been successful, what would have become of Dolores? Predicting the outcome and the impact based on the direct threats made by the hospital itself to Janet, NASGA case studies, as well as the pattern from the numerous news articles along with the daily letters to NASGA, we believe Dolores likely would have been placed in a state facility, totally isolated from Janet, her family, and her friends until the day she died.
NASGA believes this highlighted example case shows the retaliation by a health care provider, a hospital, accomplished exactly what it intended. After Janet acquiesced to the hospital’s demands, all of the conclusory statements the hospital made (alleging Janet did not have her mother’s best interest at heart) suddenly didn’t matter to the petitioner. Dolores was quickly released to Janet’s care without any further inquiries or follow-up procedures by the hospital or any state agency.
HB5573 would have protected Dolores’ legal documents and prevented the hospital from retaliating against Dolores and her daughter.
HB5573 would have protected Dolores, the patient; not the hospital.
HB5573 would have protected Dolores, the patient; not the hospital.
The Bedin case[1] is one of many. NASGA enthusiastically supports HB5573 and we very much appreciate Representative Harris for his legislative efforts to better protect the elderly and disabled citizens of Illinois.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Elaine Renoire
President
[1] State of Illinois in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, County of Winnebago Probate Division: In the matter of the Estate of Dolores Bedin, An Alleged Disabled Person, Case number 2010 P 437
NASGA Members in Legislative Action
Read the Full Text of HB5573
NASGA: Dolores Bedin, Illinois Victim
Read More About Representative Harris
HIGHLIGHT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
| 11 | (755 ILCS 5/11a-8.2 new) | |
| 12 | Sec. 11a-8.2. Petitions; previously executed documents. No | |
| 13 | petition under this Article shall seek relief that is in | |
| 14 | conflict with any properly and previously executed will, trust, | |
| 15 | power of attorney, durable power of attorney, health care | |
| 16 | directive, advance directive, or other directive unless undue | |
| 17 | influence is proven in the creation of the document, by clear | |
| 18 | and convincing evidence, at a hearing conducted under the rules | |
| 19 | of civil procedure of this State. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.