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
+Bedin's+death+April+22,+2013+Vatican+City+01138_22042013.jpg)
A little over a month after his installation, Pope Francis
met with daughter, Janet Bedin, and blessed Dolores Bedin's photo (Dolores was a
devout Catholic.) Janet wrote a letter to him about what happened to her
mother and told him how guardianship can be used as an abuse of process in a
retaliatory manner by a hospital (April 22, 2013). 
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. |
19 comments:
This is great news, because judicial overriding - or ignoring - of advance directives is a growing problem across the c country, and other states should follow.
I remember the Bedine case. It was the first time I learned of Hospitalists.
The Delores Bedin case is an adult version of the Justina Pelletier case.
I hope people have their eyes wide open what can happen when YOUR loved one enters a hospital.
Hospitalists work for who?
You? No not the patients well being.
The Hospitalists loyalty is to:
1) the hospital
2) the insurance company
3) MEDICARE and MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS
News you need to know.
Bring it on NASGA and thanks to elected state legislator for his interest in issues that matter.
I am praying this bill passes. It's so needed. And I don't even live in IL. If this bill passes in IL, it could start across the country.
When you think you are in a safe place the bottom falls out.
Who would think a hospital could get control of the patient to cover up mistakes? By going to their layers of lawyers to go to court to get guardianship of a patient who was in the dark about the reasons for her pain and symptoms that showed up on testing.
Yet the patient is denied that information years prior when she could have found medical intervention that could have saved or added quality time to her life.
No words to express my outrage and sorrow. I pray that this bill becomes law tomorrow so others can be spared. Better yet all states need to come together and pass similar legislation.
This is not a political issue, it's a people issue.
Thank you thank you thank you for caring for the people who do not have lobbyists to speak for us.
Kudos to Rep. Harris and Sylvia for your work on this proposed legislation.
I, unfortunately, have 1st hand knowlege of one of the attorneys on the Bedin case. My loved one's guardianship was handled in an unethical manner, resulting in a private, for-profit guardian being named as my loved one's guardian. The guardianship resulted in my loved one's entire estate being placed into an OBRA account, a placement from a beautiful private pay facility to a medicaid facility, and then the entire estate was paid out in atty's fees and guardian's fees. An entire estate was paid out in fees, while the ward is placed in a Medicaid facility at the taxpayer's expense.
The atty involved in the Bedin case and my loved one's case was instrumental in the unethical manner in which the guardianship was handled.
Thank you to Rep. Harris and Sylvia. This bill, when passed, can save hundreds of disabled (both young and old) form predatory guardianships that serve to profit unethical people and facilities.
I feel for the Bedin case as my mother-in-law was placed under the medical guardianship of a person who was institutionalized in 54 mental health placements. This travesty was created and perpetrated by the GAL and judge in the Probate Court of Cook County. LV ProbateSharks.com
It's pretty scary to think that a doctor or hospital can "guardianize" someone to keep them from suing them for malpractice.
Get your PoA in place now, everyone, and pray that this new bill becomes law.
The hospital said Janet didn't have her mother's best interest in mind - until Janet cooperated and did what they said. Then, they happily released Dolores to Janet - the person they had said in court was incapable of taking care of her mother.
Did the hospital lie in court? You bet they did!
Janet Bedin was trying her best to take care of her Mother and what that hospital did was criminal in my mind.
I am so glad to see the new bill in Illinois introduced and am sure it will save so many families who have suffered because of greed or control issues from hospitals and the like.
Bless you, Janet. Your Mother had to have been very proud of you.
This was the perfect case to illustrate the need to protect PoA's.
When someone gives a person a PoA, that's a commitment and a sure statement that the person wants the other person to make those decisions, etc.
That judges just ignore PoA's without holding a hearing, is infuriating.
My deepest respect to Representative Harris, a man of the people.
Thank God Janet was strong enough to stand up and protect her Mother. It's despicable what the hospital tried to do for themselves, not for Janet's mother.
I had to laugh though when the hospital accused Janet by saying leaving her Mother in the hospital was a danger because of all the germs. Did the hospital accidentally admit they're less than clean?
The cited case makes me want to cry. Poor Dolores Bedin needed a diagnosis and care, not harassment and threats. I am so glad she had such a strong daughter to protect her.
Janet Bedin is an incredible woman of courage who speaks truth to power and is fearless. Her mother was very fortunate to have a daughter whose only interest was getting her mother health care. This case was all over the news and Janet kept the issue on the forefront of the media. No wonder this case is being referred to in support of this legislation. Hospitals can be corrupt - guardianship is many times a huge scam to steal people's estates and public guardians can be very suspect. Thanks to NASGA and Rep. Harris for shining a light on this corruption. It is difficult to pass legislation....lets keep the heat turned up on this one. Someone should start a free online petition campaign on change.org to present to Illinois legislators (I can't do this). Janet and NSAGA are our heroes!
Thank you for your support of ILLINOIS HB 5573 Probate Adult Guardianships.
Your comments and opinions are important to us.
Dolores Bedin was not the first or the last patient named as a Respondent in a wrongful guardianship action by a hospital.
During the final months of her life Dolores lived in fear that the hospital and the court would find her. Terrified that she would be taken away, removed from her daughter’s care.
Janet stayed strong against a powerful adversary; she advocated for her Mother's best interests and well-being when her Mother needed her love and support at the worst time in her life.
Anonymous said….
“…I, unfortunately, have 1st hand knowledge of one of the attorneys on the Bedin case. My loved one's guardianship was handled in an unethical manner, resulting in a private, for-profit guardian being named as my loved one's guardian. The guardianship resulted in my loved one's entire estate being placed into an OBRA account, a placement from a beautiful private pay facility to a medicaid facility, and then the entire estate was paid out in atty's fees and guardian's fees. An entire estate was paid out in fees, while the ward is placed in a Medicaid facility at the taxpayer's expense.
The atty involved in the Bedin case and my loved one's case was instrumental in the unethical manner in which the guardianship was handled.
This bill, when passed, can save hundreds of disabled (both young and old) form predatory guardianships that serve to profit unethical people and facilities.”
QUESTION: Are people aware prior to being admitted that hospital administrators, their ‘health care provider’, can and will initiate guardianship proceedings against their patient, their ‘client’ for a variety of reasons with emphasis on: disagreements regarding discharge?
Suggestion for proposed legislation to:
PUBLIC HEALTH (410 ILCS 50/) Medical Patient Rights Act.
(410 ILCS 50/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5401)
Sec. 1. The purpose of this Act is to establish certain rights for medical patients and to provide a penalty for the violation thereof.
(410 ILCS 50/2.03) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5402.03)
Sec. 2.03. "Health care provider" means any public or private facility that provides, on an inpatient or outpatient basis, preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, convalescent, rehabilitation, mental health, or intellectual disability services, including general or special hospitals, skilled nursing homes, extended care facilities, intermediate care facilities and mental health centers.
(Source: P.A. 97-227, eff. 1-1-12.)
PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
The right of each patient to full disclosure by the ‘Health care provider’ who shall notify each patient upon being admitted as a patient or under observation that they are at risk to be named as the Respondent in a Petition for Guardianship action initiated by the health care provider.
Submitted by: Sylvia Rudek, Illinois
Officer & Director, National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse
On 3/27 Carole wrote:
"The hospital said Janet didn't have her mother's best interest in mind - until Janet cooperated and did what they said. Then, they happily released Dolores to Janet - the person they had said in court was incapable of taking care of her mother.
Did the hospital lie in court? You bet they did!"
There is a legal doctrine known as fraud upon the court, and that would be the case here.
But why? Seems to me to cover up medical malpractice.
May 2, 2014
Dear Rep. Harris and members of the Illinois State Legislature,
Thank you Rep. Harris for bringing this Bill to a vote based on the very troubling Dolores Bedin case.
As a physician for more than 35 years, practicing both in a Hospital and privately, I ask you and the Illinois State Legislature to strongly support this bill.
I have heard numerous medical horror stories like what the Bedin family experienced. People, devoted to the health care of their aged or infirm family members, have been bullied, harassed, intimidated and extorted by hospitals and Hospitalists who do not take the time to assess the circumstance but jump to erroneous conclusions about family members who often devote their livelihood and very lives to protect their loved ones.
I cannot say why such travesty of care has occurred. Whether for financial gain, inadequate training, or incompetent assessment of the situation. Perhaps it is attributable to the philosophy of a particular institution or personal grievance when challenged by a devoted family member advocate.
Each situation, of course should be judged on its own merits and not have a blanket procedure take place which has even disenfranchised some families and their loved ones, when ill, like Dolores Bedin.
I have direct knowledge of the Dolores Bedin situation having been a friend of the entire family for many decades. The incidents of this "case" were disclosed to me contemporaneously by Ms. Bedin. The daughter of Dolores Bedin, Janet Bedin, has not only been a devoted daughter and sister but indefatigable in being an advocate for her father, mother and brother's medical care.
What occurred to them is unconscionable. They learned by accident while Dolores was in the ER, of a series of CT Scan results taken at the hospital documenting a mass in Dolores’ pancreas which was never disclosed to the patient or family. This was clearly wrong.
When they found out and asked questions, they were bullied, intimidated and all threatened to be kicked out of Hospital, this was wrong..
To have Dolores not be given the diagnosis, after multiple CT Scan reports, or told that she had a mass in her pancreas in a timely fashion even with multiple studies performed, was wrong. For this family to learn, only by chance, that Dolores had pancreatic cancer was wrong.
To threaten Janet and her disabled brother Lex, who Dolores cared for all her life, with a phalanx of attorneys, and hospital administrators, ordering Hospitalists to document Dolores as incompetent, falsely I might add, unless she agrees to their discharge plan, was more than simply wrong, it was sadistic.
It would seem, the fear of Risk Management being called to task on the errors of care led the hospital to use such punitive tactics.
I wish you the best of luck in getting this Bill passed and each of you should feel gratified for trying to prevent more tragedies like this from occurring.
Sincerely,
Philip B. Luloff MD
Submitted by: Sylvia Rudek, NASGA Officer & Director
Having been privy to the perceptions of one of the hospitalists on this case, I have another comment to add.
It was stated that the only reason the hospital petitioned for guardianship in this case was because of a medical error which occurred in the initial reading of the CT scan. The hospital was concerned that they would be sued by Ms. Bedin's Power of Attorny (her daughter) upon the patient's death.
The initial reader of the CT scan missed seeing the cancerous mass which ultimately caused Ms. Bedin her life; the mass, which if identified when the CT was performed, could have been treated, and perhaps Ms. Bedin would be alive today.
Why, you ask, would a medical error result in a petition for guardianship?
The answer is simple: a ward of the court does not have "standing" to sue a healthcare provider for malpractice. This may only be done by the wards' guardian.
A petition to guardianize the patient would prevent a lawsuit against the hospital for malpractice, as the patient would be declared cognitively disabled, only their guardian could sue on their behalf.
If the guardian does not sue for malpractice, the healthcare provider who commiitted the error (such as failure to identify a cancerous mass on a CT scan), does not get sued. Period. No one else--neither the patient, the previous PoA, nor family member can sue the hospital.
It has also been brought to my attention that Northwestern Hospital in Chicago guardianizes MANY of their patients. THey frequently use the law firm involved with Ms. Bedin's case to petition for guardianship.
An investigation needs to occur. How many patients does Northwestern petition for guardianship for? How many of these patients were victims of medical malpractice? How many of these files are sealed? How many law suits did Northwestern avoid once a guardian was named ? Who becomes the guardian for Northwestern's patients? What is in it for the guardian? What is in it for the judges?
SO many unanswered questions. Hopefully the feds will get to the bottom ot this.
Post a Comment