Goltsman Wins Summary Judgment for Home Health Care Provider

Mara Goltsman obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, a home health care agency providing home care services to the 87-year-old, bed-bound decedent who had multiple co-morbidities including a diagnosis of advanced Alzheimer’s Disease. Another home health care agency was also providing services to the decedent at the same time. The decedent’s daughter, who lived with her, cared for her mother during the hours that a home health aide (“HHA”) did not come to the home. The decedent developed a sacral ulcer. The HHA alerted the daughter to the fact that the ulcer was worsening and the HHA brought the decedent to a hospital. The decedent was hospitalized for a few days but the ulcer was not treated. Plaintiff’s counsel did not name the hospital in the lawsuit. Following discharge, the decedent was seen by a nurse on behalf of another agency and began receiving services from yet another home care agency. The decedent was hospitalized about 2 weeks after the hospital discharge and died approximately 2 months into the hospitalization. An autopsy was not performed and the hospital records stated that the ulcer was improving and that they were trying to discharge the decedent back home for several weeks before she died.

Our summary judgment motion was supported by an affirmation from a geriatric expert who opined that the home care services provided by our client were appropriate and addressed the decedent’s longstanding functional decline, her condition and the fact that numerous providers advised the daughter that her mother should be admitted to a skilled nursing facility, yet the daughter refused. The expert also addressed the fact that the HHA was not permitted to render any treatment for the sacral ulcer. Plaintiff’s expert made various arguments as to what the HHAs should have done which we argued was the type of care that would have been provided to the decedent at a skilled nursing facility. We argued that plaintiff’s expert affirmation was conclusory and speculative and failed to defeat our prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. After oral argument, the Court granted our motion and dismissed all claims asserted against the agency.