Care One at Randolph

CareOne at Randolph

MI Elder Abuse Free Legal ConsultationDid someone you love suffer elder abuse or neglect at Care One at Randolph? Our lawyers can help.

Abuse of the elderly is not acceptable and we fight hard in these types of cases. If you suspect a nursing home or caregiver has caused harm to your loved one in someone elses’ care, contact our law firm today for a free legal consultation.

Talking to us does not obligate you to anything, but we may be able to tell you if you have a claim and the value of your case. If we accept your case, you pay no fee unless we recover for you.

About Care One at Randolph

CareOne at Randolph Care One at Randolph is a for profit, 168-bed Medicare/Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility that provides services to the residents of Randolph,  Holbrook, Stoughton,  Braintree, and the other towns in and surrounding Norfolk County, Massachusetts.

Care One at Randolph focuses on 24 hour care, respite care, hospice care and rehabilitation services.

Care One at Randolph
49 Thomas Patten Dr,
Randolph, MA 02368

Phone: (781) 961-1160
Website: http://ma.care-one.com/locations/careone-at-randolph/

CMS Star Quality Rating

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) rates all nursing homes that accept medicare or medicaid benefits. CMS created a 5 Star Quality Rating System—1 star is the lowest rating and 5 stars is the highest—that look at three areas.  As of 2017, Care One in Randolph, Massachusetts received a rating of 3 out of 5 stars.

Performance Area Rating
Overall Rating 3 out of 5 (Average)
State Health Inspections 2 out of 5 (Below Average)
Staffing 4 out of 5 (Above Average)
Quality Measures 3 out of 5 (Average)

Fines and Penalties

Our Nursing Home Elder Injury Lawyers inspected government records and discovered Care One at Randolph committed the following offenses:

Failed to keep each resident free from physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete initial and ongoing assessments regarding the use of a restraint and positioning device for 1 resident, (#21), out of a total of 24 sampled residents.

Findings include:

Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in 2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of Resident #21’s most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated that he/she is totally dependent for bathing, dressing, transfers and eating. Review of Resident #21’s physician’s orders [REDACTED]. May have seatbelt on when in wheelchair for repositioning and safety – initiated 5/5/16 Abdominal Binder to prevent pulling G tube – apply as needed for safety – initiated 4/13/17 Review of Resident #21’s restraint careplan, (undated), indicated the use of the seatbelt to keep him/her in an upright position related to poor posture and identified the use of the abdominal binder as a method to prevent injury that may occur from Resident #21 pulling out his/her G tube. Interventions identified in the care plan included: evaluate for possible restraint reduction, restraint assessment quarterly and as needed, re-evaluate device use during IDT, (interdisciplinary team) review meeting, release and position every two hours and as needed, care and feedings, 1:1 supervision. Review of the facility’s Physical Restraint Policy, effective date 12/15/11, indicated the following:

Process: Complete the pre-restraining evaluation to determine possible underlying causes of the problematic medical symptom to determine if there are less restrictive interventions that may improve the symptoms. Subsequently complete the Physical Restraint Elimination Review assessment quarterly or when there is a significant change in the resident status. Completed assessments are reviewed by the IDT, if a restraint is indicated, the IDT will determine when the device should be applied and for what length of time striving for restraint use that is for the least amount of time possible. Review of Resident #21’s clinical record indicated that no initial assessment for his/her seatbelt was completed to determine the use of the seatbelt as a positioning device and no initial assessment for the use of the abdominal binder as a restraint was completed. Further review of Resident #21’s clinical record indicated that no ongoing quarterly assessments were completed and there was no review of the devices during IDT meetings. During interview with Unit Manager #2 on 6/14/17, at 1:36 P.M., she said that the abdominal binder is used as needed for Resident #21 so he/she will not remove of his/her G tube and that the seatbelt is used as a positioning device when Resident #21 is seated in his/her wheelchair. She said she could not find documentation in Resident #21’s record that he/she was initially assessed or had ongoing assessments to indicate that Resident #21’s abdominal binder was assessed as a restraint or that the use of the seatbelt is for positioning.

Failed to provide care for residents in a way that keeps or builds each resident's dignity and respect of individuality.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to treat and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes the enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident’s individuality.

The facility failed to provide a dignified setting for residents by failing to respond to resident needs, assist residents as appropriate, promote dignified dining experiences on the 3 West unit, and respecting resident room privacy on the 2 East unit.

Findings include:

1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility in 9/2012 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. On 6/12/17, at 8:30 A.M., observation were made on the 3rd floor main dining room. 14 Residents were observed seated at 5 separate tables. 3 staff members were observed removing the trays from the food truck and delivering them to the residents. Resident #17 was observed seated in a wheelchair pushed up to table with one other resident seated in a chair.

At 8:30 A.M., Resident #17 started to yell Help Me!, Help Me!, Help Me! and then I don’t know what to do!. The staff members continued to deliver trays without acknowledging Resident #17 in any way. The resident continued to say I don’t know what to do! intermittently.

At 8:35 A.M. and again at 8:45 A.M., Resident #17 yelled out Help Me! Help Me! Help Me! followed by I don’t know what to do! No staff members addressed Resident #17, and they continued to deliver breakfast trays.

At 8:41 A.M., a staff member brought a tray to Resident #17. Resident #17 again yelled Help Me!, Help Me!, Help Me! I don’t know what to do! The staff member responded It’s your food, eat it, or words to that effect, and then walked away. At 8:42 A.M., Resident #17 was observed feeling for her utensils and then began to eat hot cereal.

On 6/13/17, 10:21 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator met with the survey team. The DON and Administrator both acknowledged that staff should have intervened and addressed the Resident’s concerns. The Administrator acknowledged that it was not the facility’s policy to ignore a resident calling out and that residents should be addressed and reassured when they show that they are distressed.

2. The facility failed to intervene as appropriate and assist Resident #3 in being positioned and seen in a dignified manner. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in 9/2015 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. On 6/9/17 at 8:40 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #3 in 2 East Dining Room. Resident #3 was in his/her wheelchair and leaning to his/her left side and drooling. Two staff was behind him/her talking to one another.

At 8:50 A.M., the surveyor returned to 2 East dining rooms and observed Resident #3 in the same position and drooling. Two staff continued to stand behind him/her talking. At 10:40 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #3 watching TV in his/her room in his/her wheelchair leaning to his/her left side drooling.

3. The facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for residents on the 3 West Unit.

On 6/12/17 the following was observed during the breakfast meal:

  • At 8:20 A.M., the food truck arrived to the unit for the breakfast meal, and the staff began to assist residents to the dining area for breakfast.
  • At 8:38 A.M., a staff person pointed to two residents and referred to them to another staff member as feeds. At this time, 12 residents seated in the dining area had their meals served to them, while 3 were waiting for their meals. These residents were either sleeping or watching those around them eat while they waited for assistance.
  • At 8:43 A.M., 1 remaining resident was waiting for his/her tray and was watching the 14 other residents eat, or be assisted with their meal.
  • At 8:45 A.M., 2 staff began speaking to each other across the room regarding a resident who was still in bed and discussed who should assist in getting him/her up and ready for the day in front of all 15 residents in the dining area.
  • At 8:49 A.M., the last tray was delivered to the last resident in the dining area.

4. The facility failed to respect resident’s privacy and dignity by failing to knock on resident room doors before entering on the 2 East Unit

On 6/12/17, the following were observed on the 2 East Unit:

  • At 10:47 A.M., a CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] without knocking, obtained a pair of gloves, and then entered room [ROOM NUMBER] without knocking.
  • At 10:59 A.M., a CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] without knocking At
  • 11:12 A.M., a CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and knocked after already entering the room.
failed to provide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for 2 Residents (#5 and #11) out of 24 sampled Residents, that Physicians orders and Care Plans were followed.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #5, the facility failed to implement the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. Resident #5 was readmitted to the facility in 5/2017 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. Review of Resident #5’s Fall Evaluation dated 5/24/17, indicated that the Resident is high risk for fall and has history of rolling out of bed.

On 6/12/17 at 7:45 A.M., the Surveyor observed Resident #5 in bed sleeping, and no fat mat was seen on the floor beside the bed. At 9:35 A.M., the Resident was observed in bed and no fat mat was on the floor beside the bed. On 6/13/17 at 7:10 A.M., the Surveyor observed Resident #5 in bed sleeping and no fat mat was observed on the floor beside the bed.

On 6/13/17 at 10:15 A.M., the Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2, and asked if Resident #5 has a fat mat beside the bed for safety. CNA #2 told the Surveyor that Resident #5 was new on the unit and she does not recall Resident #5 as having a fat mat on the floor beside his/her bed.

On 6/13/17 at 10:30 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 was interviewed and told the Surveyor that she was not aware about the fat mat order and that Resident #5 has not had a fall for a while.

4. For Resident #11, the facility failed to notify his/her physician regarding weight gains as ordered. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in 2015 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The most recent Minimum Data Set, (MDS), dated [DATE] indicated that he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance for bathing, dressing and transfers.

Review of Resident #11’s physicians orders indicated the following: Weight 3 times per week, notify MD if weight gain is greater than 3 lbs – initiated 11/18/15.

Review of Resident #11’s weights indicated the following:

  • Weight 5/26/17 135.2 lbs
  • Weight 5/29/17 138.8 lbs (A total gain of 3.6 lbs)
  • Weight 6/5/17 132.2 lbs
  • Weight 6/9/17 135.6 lbs (A total gain of 3.4 lbs)

The Surveyor reviewed Resident #11’s clinical record and the unit’s communication book with Unit Manager #2 and both indicated that the facility did not notify the physician as ordered.

Failed to make sure that the nursing home area is free from accident hazards and risks and provides supervision to prevent avoidable accidents

Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision for 4 of 4 residents, (including sampled Resident #20), identified as Residents who smoke daily from the 2 East unit.

Findings include:

Review of the facility’s Resident Smoking Policy, revised 2/28/2012, indicated that residents who smoke will be assessed and provided supervision if needed by facility staff. During interview with the facility Director of Nursing, (DON), on 6/8/17 at 11:46 A.M., he said that all residents who reside in the facility who smoke require supervision. On 6/8/17 at 10:40 A.M., 4 residents, including Resident #20, from the 2 East unit were observed smoking outside, near an emergency fire blanket and fire extinguisher. The staff person designated to supervise the residents was seated far from the residents and emergency equipment at a picnic table with her back to the residents.

On 6/8/17 at 2:21 P.M., the same 4 smokers from the 2 East unit were observed smoking. Resident #20 was observed wearing a smoking apron, (an apron designed to prevent accidental burns should a cigarette be dropped accidentally on the body). Review of Resident #20’s smoking care plan dated 3/21/17 and safe smoking evaluation dated 3/21/17 indicated that he/she was to wear a smoking apron while smoking. The staff person assigned to supervise the 4 residents was seated at a far distance at a picnic table away from the residents and the emergency equipment.

On 6/9/17 at 10:24 A.M., the same 4 smokers from the 2 East unit were observed smoking. Resident #20 was not wearing a smoking apron as indicated on his/her safe smoking assessment and smoking care plan. The staff person was seated far from the residents and the emergency equipment at a picnic table with her back to the residents. On 6/9/17 at 1:43 P.M., the surveyors met with the Administrator and DON in the smoking area and measured the distance between the picnic table, (where staff were observed seated during resident smoking times), and the resident smoking section at a distance of 30 feet away. Additionally, the picnic table measured 40 feet from the fire blanket and fire extinguisher. The Administrator and DON agreed that the distance between where staff had been seen by the surveyor was too far to respond in the event of an accident, and also said that staff should be facing residents to provide appropriate supervision.

Failed to properly care for residents needing special services, including: injections, colostomy, ureostomy, ileostomy, tracheostomy care, tracheal suctioning, respiratory care, foot care, and prostheses

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete accurate Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) records for 1 resident (#19) out of 24 sampled residents.

Findings include:

In 4/2017, Resident #19 was admitted to the facility with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Record review indicated that Resident #19 was admitted to the facility with a PICC line in place. The Infusion Order Medication Administration Record [REDACTED]. There were no other records available in the chart that indicated the length or other information about the PICC.

The Electronic Medical Record (EMR), contained a Nutrition note, dated 4/19/17, that indicated that the PICC was in the right arm and terminated in the SVC (superior vena cava).

At 12:45 P.M., the Director of Nursing, (DON), was interviewed and he stated that he was not sure about arm circumference, but that initial measurements should be documented upon admission.

At 1:10 P.M., the DON came to the conference room with a Resident Evaluation completed on 4/18/17, with the arm circumference 24 cm, the external length of 10 cm. He said that Corporate Nurse#1 was looking for policies for PICC care.

At 1:15 P.M., Corporate Nurse #1 entered the conference room and provided a policy for Central Venous Access Devices and Site Care and Dressing Change. Neither document addressed PICC measurements. Corporate Nurse #1 then said that the nurse does measure the PICC but only charts the measurement if there is something wrong or different or words to that effect. The surveyor asked if there was any written policy stating that as the appropriate care of assessing the PICC. Corporate Nurse #1 responded no and said there was no policy requiring measurements.

At 2:00 PM, on the 2 East unit, the surveyor obtained the Infusion Therapy Nursing Manual, with the same policies that were provided to the survey team, by Corporate Nurse #1. Included with those policies was the Nursing Notes and Documentation policy. Which indicated the following: Intravenous site assessments shall be conducted and documented each shift (or at least every 8 hours) by a nurse qualified in infusion therapy.

Documentation should be recorded in the facility nursing notes and should include: presence of any external length, as appropriate. At 3:10 P.M., the Administrator and the DON came to the conference room. The policy was read to both the Administrator and the DON. The DON said then we weren’t following our policy or words to that effect.

Failed to maintain drug records and properly mark/label drugs and other similar products according to accepted professional standards.

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored in a safe manner on 1 of 4 units surveyed.

Findings include:

On 6/14/17, at 10:30 A.M., while on the 2 East unit, the surveyor was positioned at the medication cart making observations. At 10:45 A.M., Nurse #2 approached the medication cart and indicated that she needed the cart to administer medications. The surveyor used this opportunity to observe a medication administration. At 11:00, during Medication Administration observation the Surveyor observed Nurse #2 unlock and open the medication cart. The surveyor observed an unlabeled medication cup, containing 7 pills, inside the top drawer. Nurse #2 completed her medication pass and wheeled the cart back to the nurses station.

The surveyor then asked Nurse #2 to open the medication cart and the surveyor then asked about the medication cup which was still in the top drawer. Nurse #2 responded that it was for another resident that was unable to receive medications. Nurse #2 identified the medications as Lyrica 100 mg, Colace 100 mg, Ritalin 18 mg (Ritalin is a schedule II substance which must be stored in a separately locked, permanently fixed compartment) a Multi Vitamin, Calcium Tablet and 2 Acetaminophen 325 mg tablets. She stated that the Wound Physician was seeing the resident so she put the medications back in the medication cart to be administered later.

Unit Manager #1, who was seated next to the Surveyor and Nurse #2, was asked what was the appropriate action to take if the resident was unable to take the medications. Unit Manager #1 said, You need to waste them, otherwise it looks like you are pre-pouring the medications, or words to that effect. Nurse #2 then acknowledged that she should have wasted the medication.

On 6/14 at 1:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON acknowledged that the medication should not have been stored in the medication cart and that the medications should have been destroyed/wasted.

Failed to have a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from spreading.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to prevent the potential for infections for 3 Residents (#12, #8 and #11), out of a total sample of 24 Residents.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #12 the facility failed to prevent the potential for infection during his/her pressure ulcer dressing change. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of Resident #12 most recent Minimum Data Set, (MDS), dated [DATE] indicated that he/she has a stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer to coccyx.

Review of Resident #12’s physician’s orders [REDACTED]. The order indicated: vashe wash (a solution use in cleansing, irrigating acute and chronic wound), followed by [MEDICATION NAME] cream to coccyx then foam dressing.

On 6/13/17 at 8:05 A.M., the surveyors observed Nurse #2 perform the dressing change and treatment. Nurse #2 was assisted by Unit Manger (UM) #3.

The following observation was made:

Nurse #2 washed her hands and put gloves on. All the supplies were opened and placed on the bedside table. Nurse #2 proceeded to remove the old dressing on his/her coccyx. She then removed her gloves, put new gloves on and started washing the wound with vashe wash. She removed her gloves and put on new gloves and proceeded to measure the wound. After measuring the wound, she removed her gloves and put new gloves on and applied [MEDICATION NAME] cream followed by dressing. Each time Nurse #2 removed her gloves, she did not wash her hands.

Immediately following the dressing change, the surveyors met with Nurse #2 and UM #3 and discussed the concerns regarding infection control practices during the dressing change, specifically hand washing. Both Nurse #2 and UM #3 told surveyors that hand washing should have been done each time she changed gloves. Review of Facility Clean Dressing Change Policy, dated 3/22/13, indicated that staff should perform hand hygiene before putting new gloves.

2. For Resident #11, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions regarding the care of his/her oxygen tubing. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in 2015 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The most recent MDS, dated [DATE] indicated that he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance for bathing, dressing and transfers.

Review of Resident #11’s physicians orders indicated the following:

Change and cleanse respiratory equipment every week on Wednesday on 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M., shift.

Review of the Facility’s Oxygen Therapy Policy, dated 7/22/11, indicated there is no formal facility procedure regarding the cleaning of oxygen equipment including tubing. During observations of Resident #11’s room on 6/8/17 at 8:48 A.M., and 6/9/17 at 8:36 A.M., the tubing was observed to be dated 5/31/17; indicating that Resident #11’s oxygen tubing had not been changed or cleaned since then. During interview with Unit Manager #3 at 9:17 A.M. on 6/9/17, she said that the 11:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M., shift is responsible for cleaning the equipment and changing the tubing as ordered and she would immediately change the tubing for Resident #11.

3. For Resident #8, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions regarding the care of his/her oxygen tubing. Resident #8 was admitted the the facility in 4/2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #8 requires assistance with bathing, dressing and transfers.

Review of Resident #8’s physician’s orders [REDACTED].

On 6/12/17 at 11:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #8 resting in bed wearing oxygen. The oxygen tubing which was connected to Resident #8’s oxygen concentrator was dated 5/22/17; indicating that the tubing had not been changed for 22 days. In addition, the tubing was draped over and around the concentrator and bedside rails which were visibly dirty with buildup of grime, hair and other unknown substances.

During interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/12/17 at 11:27 A.M., she said that there may have been a transcription error and that was why there was no order in place regarding when to change Resident #8’s oxygen tubing. She said that although there was no order, it was facility policy for the over night staff to change the tubing for residents with oxygen weekly.

At that time, the Surveyor and Unit Manager #1 observed Resident #8’s room. (Resident #8 was no longer in bed.) Unit Manager #1 observed the date on the tubing and the dirt buildup on the bed rails where the tubing had been draped and said she would immediately change the tubing and ask housekeeping to clean the concentrator and the bed rails.

Failed to keep accurate, complete and organized clinical records on each resident that meet professional standards.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to document accurately in the Medication Administration Record [REDACTED].

Findings include:

1. For Resident #10 the facility failed to document on the MAR indicated [REDACTED]. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in 10/2014 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of physician’s orders [REDACTED].

Review of Resident #10 MAR indicated [REDACTED] On 6/9/17 at 1:00 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 was interviewed and told surveyor she was not aware the 3/2017 MAR indicated [REDACTED]. She told surveyor that she would check with the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M., nurses.

On 6/12/17 at 10:00 A.M., UM #2 told surveyor that she spoke with 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. staff. She said she was told that the Atorvastatin was offered and refused by Resident #10, but staff forgot to sign and document it in MAR.

2. For Resident #20 the facility failed to accurately document medications as being given. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in 12/2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated that he/she requires assistance with bathing, dressing, and transfers.

Review of Resident #20’s MAR’s dated 3/2017, 4/2017 and 6/2017 indicated the following: On 3/16/17. staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 9:00 P.M. dose.

On 3/17/17, staff did not indicate what Resident #20’s blood sugar reading was or how many units of insulin were given for the 4:45 P.M., and 9:00 P.M. doses.

On 3/19/17, staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 11:45 A.M. dose.

On 4/16/17, staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 11:45 A.M. dose.

On 4/19/17, staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 4:45 P.M. dose.

On 4/21/17, staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 9:00 P.M. dose.

On 4/22/17, staff did not indicate how many units of insulin were given for the 4:45 P.M. dose.

On 4/25/17, staff did not indicate what Resident #20’s blood sugar reading was or how many units of insulin were given for the 11:45 A.M. dose.

the 9:00 P.M., 4:45 P.M., and 7:45 A.M., dosages were outside of the ordered parameters. During interview with the DON on 6/14/17 at 7:30 A.M., he said that he had met with staff and had obtained written statements from staff that the appropriate dosages were given to Resident #20.

Care One at Randolph, Nursing Home Neglect and Elder Abuse Lawyers

If someone you love has suffered neglect or elder abuse by a senior caregiver, nursing home, or other care facility, our lawyers may be able to help. Regardless of whether or not criminal charges are filed against an alleged abuser, you may still be able to pursue compensation in a civil claim. Compensation in elder abuse cases may be awarded if someone in the care of another suffers harm due to intentional or negligent actions (including failure to take action).

Abuse of the elderly is not acceptable and we fight hard in these types of cases. If you suspect a nursing home or caregiver has caused harm to your loved one in someone elses’ care, contact our law firm today for a free legal consultation. Talking to us does not obligate you to anything, but we may be able to tell you if you have a claim and the value of your case. If we accept your case, you pay no fee unless we recover for you.

Oftentimes, victims of abuse either cannot or will not speak up for themselves out of fear. If you notice any warning signs or symptoms of neglect of abuse an an elderly person, it is important you contact an elder abuse lawyer immediately. Not only are there statute of limitations on filing a claim, but the sooner we start helping you, the easier it will be to collect evidence and talk to any witnesses before important details are lost, hidden, or forgotten.

 

Boston Personal Injury Lawyers for Elder Abuse Cases

We offer a free, no-obligation legal consultation to help you understand your rights and the value of your case. Our personal injury law firm takes cases involving elder abuse and neglect. We offer legal service to clients in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.


Sources:

Page Last Updated: November 18, 2017

Call Now Button