Wingate at Norton

Wingate at Norton

MI Elder Abuse Free Legal ConsultationDid someone you love suffer elder abuse or neglect at Wingate at Norton? 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 Wingate at Norton

Wingate at NortonWingate at Norton is a for profit, 106-bed Medicare/Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility that provides services to the residents of Norton, Easton, Mansfield, Attleboro,  Raynham, and the other towns in and surrounding Bristol County, Massachusetts.

Wingate at Norton focuses on 24 hour care, respite care, hospice care and rehabilitation services.

Wingate at Norton
184 Mansfield Avenue
Norton, MA 02766

Phone: (508) 285-7745
Website: http://wingatehealthcare.com/location/wingate-at-norton/

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, Wingate at Norton in 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 3 out of 5 (Above Average)
Quality Measures 5 out of 5 (Below Average)

Fines and Penalties Against Wingate at Norton

Our Nursing Home Injury Lawyers inspected government records and discovered Wingate at Norton committed the following offenses:

Failed to make sure each resident receives an accurate assessment by a qualified health professional.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS), for 2 residents, (#3 and #13), out of a total sample of 20 residents.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #3, the Facility failed to accurately complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a reference date of 3/23/17 for Section J for fall history. Resident #3 was admitted to the Facility in 1/2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].

Review of the medical record indicated that Resident #3 had a fall on 1/29/17. Review of Weekly Fall Focus Note indicated that Resident #3 fell in front of his/her bathroom. Review of Section J Health Conditions of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #3 had no falls during the assessment review period (12/29/16 to 3/23/17). The MDS coordinator was interviewed 6/7/17 about the omission of Resident #3’s fall on the MDS. She said that it was an error and that Resident #3 should have been coded for a fall. Later in the day on 6/7/17, the MDS coordinator provided this surveyor with a Modification Request to correct Section J to indicate that Resident #3 had a fall without injury.

2. For Resident #13, the Facility failed accurately complete the Quarterly MDS assessment with a reference date of 3/30/17 for section N for Antidepressant Medications. Resident #13 was admitted to the Facility in 7/2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of Resident #13’s most recent MDS with a reference date of 3/30/17 indicated that Resident #13 required extensive assistance with all care and was non-ambulatory (not able to walk). Resident had a BIMS score of 5 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of MDS Section N for Medications indicated that Resident #13 received no anti-depressant medications during the 7 day look back period (3/23-3/30/17) Review of the medical record indicated that Resident #13 had physician orders [REDACTED]. Review of the Medication Admission Record (MAR) for the period of 3/23-3/10/17 indicated that Resident #13 did receive his/her daily doses of Trazadone and [MEDICATION NAME] as ordered by the physician.

The MDS coordinator was interviewed on 6/7/17 at 9:50 A.M. Surveyor asked her to review the MDS and the medications. She said that Section N was in error and that Resident should have been coded for 7 days of anti-depressants. Later in the day, She provided this surveyor with a Modification Request to correct Section N of the MDS to indicate that Resident did receive anti-depressant medications during the MDS assessment period.

Failed to provide necessary care and services to maintain the highest well being of each resident.

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

Based on observation, interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate provision of care for a Resident receiving [MEDICAL TREATMENT], for one of 2 applicable Residents (#6), and from a total sample of 20 residents.

Findings include:

The facility failed to implement a plan of care to address: 1.) the prevention of a potential blood stream infection for a central venous catheter (cvc) used for [MEDICAL TREATMENT] access and 2.) the monitoring and evaluation of a [MEDICAL TREATMENT] fluid restriction via Intake and Output (I&O) as ordered by the [MEDICAL TREATMENT] provider’s dietician, and failed to include interventions for Resident education about the serious potential side effects of fluid restriction non-compliance.

1.) Patients who undergo [MEDICAL TREATMENT] treatment have an increased risk for getting an infection. [MEDICAL TREATMENT] patients are at a high risk for infection because the process of [MEDICAL TREATMENT] requires frequent use of catheters or insertion of needles to access the bloodstream. [MEDICAL TREATMENT] patients have weakened immune systems, which increase their risk for infection, and they require frequent hospitalization s and surgery where they might acquire an infection. Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) result in thousands of deaths each year and billions of dollars in added costs to the U.S. healthcare system, yet these infections are preventable(Centers for Disease Control., [MEDICAL TREATMENT] Safety. 9/21/2016). your body holds on to excess fluid and waste your kidneys cannot remove.

2.) [MEDICAL TREATMENT] removes fluid as the blood is filtered through the [MEDICAL TREATMENT] machine. However, there is a limit on how much fluid can be safely removed during a [MEDICAL TREATMENT] session. If you exceed your fluid allowance, sometimes an extra [MEDICAL TREATMENT] session may be required to remove all the extra fluid. Too much fluid can cause swelling and increase blood pressure, which makes your heart work harder and can build up in the lungs, making it difficult to breathe. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in 4/2015 with the following pertinent Diagnoses: [REDACTED]. The Resident had a left forearm fistula which was maturing (placed in 5/2017) for future [MEDICAL TREATMENT] access, however the cvc was the only access currently in use for [MEDICAL TREATMENT] three times per week. The Resident is cognitively intact with a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15.

On 6/7/17 at 8:00 A.M. the Surveyor interviewed Resident #6. The Surveyor asked about the dressing changes for his/her cvc. The Resident said that the [MEDICAL TREATMENT] clinic was responsible for changing the cvc dressing. The Surveyor asked if the staff had educated him/her about keeping the dressing dry. The Resident said that he/she was careful to keep the dressing dry while taking a shower.

On 6/7/17 at 10:00 A.M. the Surveyor observed the Resident ambulating in the hallway with wet hair and wearing a wet T-shirt. Immediately following the observation, the Surveyor interviewed Unit Manager #2 (UM). The UM said that the Resident was on the shower schedule for Wednesdays. The Surveyor asked the UM if the [MEDICAL TREATMENT] clinic had been consulted regarding the care of the cvc. The UM said no and that that he would call the clinic. The [MEDICAL TREATMENT] clinic staff told the UM that the Resident should not be showering and should only be taking sponge baths to protect the catheter from getting wet in any way.

The Surveyor also reviewed the I&O sheet totals with the UM. The UM said that the Resident was non-compliant with his/her diet and fluid restriction. The Surveyor asked if there was an interdisciplinary (dietary, physician, [MEDICAL TREATMENT] staff) analysis of the excessive intake totals. The UM did not respond, but upon survey exit, provided the Surveyor with a newly created care plan and evidence of Resident education. On 6/7/17 review of the medical record indicated the following:

*physician’s orders [REDACTED]., nursing 360 mls., snacks 120 mls.)

* no care plan for the cvc to address maintaining aseptic technique if the dressing becomes loosened or falls off, no interventions on how to keep the cvc site dry (to prevent a blood stream infection) and no Resident education regarding the importance of keeping the dressing dry to prevent a serious blood stream infection for a Resident who prefers to shower.

* the treatment administration record (TAR) indicated no interventions to maintain a dry cvc dressing.

* I&O sheets for 5/2017 and 6/2017 indicated 37 entries for 24 hour totals. From the 37 entries, 36 were above the 1200 mls. restriction and 29 entries were above 1400 mls. in a 24 hour period. There was no indication of inter-disciplinary analysis of the I&O sheets or Resident review/education.

*no care plan to address a [MEDICAL TREATMENT] fluid restriction of 1200 mls. per day (for a non-compliant Resident) and no education interventions.

* Care Card (to assist the CNAs in providing care) indicated no fluid restriction information or information about keeping the cvc dry)

On the afternoon of 6/9/17, the Surveyor updated the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and Administrator regarding the potential for a blood stream infection to the Resident’s cvc and the lack of analysis of 24 hour I&O sheet totals, which consistently exceeded the 1200 mls. limit. The DNS provided the Surveyor with a newly created care plan, Resident education documentation and an updated TAR prior to the exit interview.

Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores.

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

Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed, for one sampled Resident (#14), to accurately assess pressure injuries and was failed to correctly operate a specialty air mattress. The total sample was 20 residents.

Findings include:

For Resident #14, the facility failed to accurately assess pressure injuries and incorrectly documented 2 areas as excoriations and the Resident was using a specialty air mattress that the staff did not know how to operate. Resident #14 was admitted in 6/2017 for rehabilitative services and treatment of [REDACTED].

A review of the hospital discharge summary dated 5/30/17 indicated the Resident was treated in the hospital and had completed a 14 day course of [MEDICATION NAME] (antibiotic) [MEDICAL CONDITION] ([MEDICAL CONDITION]-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) complicated UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) and was currently being treated for [REDACTED]. The admission skin assessment completed on 6/1/17 indicated the Resident had two open areas on the right and left buttocks and an unstageable dark eschar (dead tissue) area on the left heel that measured 3 cm x 4 cm. (2.5 cm.= 1 inch).

A review of the treatment record for 6/2/17 to 6/6/17 indicated the right and left buttocks treatment was to wash with normal saline and use a foam dressing on each area. The left heel eschar area had an order for [REDACTED]. For 6/3/17, 6/4/17 and 6/5/17 the treatment had no information to review of the 2 buttocks areas and the left heel. The treatment record on 6/7/17 indicated the left heel eschar wound was now dry and intact. A review of the weekly skin log indicated the two buttocks areas were assessed as non-pressure areas.

During Surveyor #3 observation of Resident’s skin areas with Unit Manager #3 on 6/8/17 at 1:45 P.M., the Resident was found laying on a hard firm air mattress with both lower extremities heavily [MEDICAL CONDITION] with a pillow under them. When the Resident was moved on to the right side, the Resident had another pillow laying under the left side and a cloth diaper laid under him/her and was found also wearing a disposable diaper. When the buttocks dressings were removed the right and left buttocks areas were observed to be superficial ulcers with loss of epidermis, shallow with a pink wound bed. The two wounds were observed to be pressure injuries and categorized as Stage 2 wounds. The left heel wound was observed to be eschar that was lifting and the surrounding skin boggy and pink. The specialty air mattress was observed to be at the firmest setting of 10 and felt hard. The Unit Manager was asked what setting the air mattress was to be on and she said she did not know. She said the company had installed it and she did not know about it.

A review of the mattresses manufacturer’s information noted the mattress in use for Resident #14 was a 300 Wound surface bed which is a highly functional wound care prevention and treatment surface combining both alternating pressure and low air loss modalities in one mattress for superior comfort and treatment. The firm function is designated for performing nursing procedures. The mattress was observed to be set on the firmest setting 10 and the monitor indicated that the setting was locked. The Unit Manager was asked what setting the Resident should be on and said she did not know about the mattress and would speak with the physician.

After observation the Director of Nurses was asked to review the skin areas and the specialty mattress. Later that afternoon, Unit Manager #3 presented a new skin log that now indicated the two buttocks areas were noted on the weekly skin log as pressure areas.

Failed to make sure that each resident's drug regimen is free from unnecessary drugs; Each resident's entire drug/medication is managed and monitored to achieve highest well being.

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

Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Residents did not receive medications in excessive doses for 2 Residents (#2 and #4) from a total sample of 20 resident records.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #4, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident did not receive excess doses of [MEDICATION NAME] on three of six days in 6/2017 (6/2/17, 6/4/17 and 6/6/17). The medical record was reviewed on 6/6/17.

Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in 6/2016 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated the Resident was alert and oriented, identified as capable of making own decisions, had mood indicators and behaviors towards others. For activities of daily living the Resident requires supervision and assistance with transfers, dressing, ambulation and hygiene. Medical record review indicated a physician orders [REDACTED].)to be administered every other day.

Review of the 6/2017 MAR from 6/1/17 to 6/6/17, indicated the facility staff administered Resident #4, 5 mg of [MEDICATION NAME] daily instead of every other day as ordered. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate any change in orders. According to the 5/2017 MAR, the resident had received the [MEDICATION NAME] 5 milligrams every other day. During interview on 6/6/17 at 1:15 P.M., Unit Manager #1 did not have an explanation why the order was incorrectly transcribed to the Resident’s 6/2017 MAR. The Unit Manager #1 verified the physician order, called the physician to inform of error and clarified with the physician that the resident should receive 5 milligrams of [MEDICATION NAME] every other day. The Unit Manager #1, confirmed Resident #4 received doses in error on 6/2/17, 6/4/17 and 6/6/17.

2. For Resident #2, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident did not receive excess doses of Iron Sulfate on three of six days in 6/2017 (6/2/17, 6/4/17 and 6/6/17). Resident #2 was readmitted to the facility in 1/2017 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was alert and oriented, with modified decision making skills having a 5 of 15 BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score. For activities of daily living the Resident was dependent except to eat, received pain medication and identified with an unstageable pressure ulcer Medical record review included a physician order [REDACTED].

Review of this Resident’s 6/2017 MAR from 6/1/17 to 6/6/17, indicated the facility staff administered the iron sulfate (325 mg.) daily, instead of every other day as ordered. This discrepancy was discussed with the Unit Manager #3 at 10:20 A.M. on 6/7/17 and confirmed that the medication was given in error for three days. The Resident’s physician and health care agent were notified and the medication was to be administered as ordered, every other day.

Failed to keep the rate of medication errors (wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time) to less than 5%.

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

Based on medication pass observation, staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure for one Non-Sampled Resident (NS) (NS#1), a medication error rate equal to or less than 5% per the requirement.

On 6/7/17, the Surveyor observed 12 medication pass opportunities on one unit with one staff nurse. A second Surveyor observed 14 medication pass opportunities on separate unit with a different staff nurse with no errors for a total of 26 observed medication pass opportunities. There were 4 medication omissions (errors) for a total error rate of 15%.

Findings include:

On 6/7/17 at 9:00 A.M., the Surveyor observed Nurse #1 administering the 10:00 A.M. medications to NS Resident #1. Nurse #1 administered 7 medications. The Surveyor reviewed the physician’s orders [REDACTED].M., but were not. The following medications were not administered as ordered by the Resident’s physician:

1.) [MEDICATION NAME] tab 60 mg. (ER) 1 tablet by mouth once daily at 10:00 A.M.

2.) Calcium [MEDICATION NAME] + Vitamin D (600/400) one tab by mouth daily at 10:00 A.M.

3.) [MEDICATION NAME] 75 mg. 1 tablet by mouth once daily at 10:00 A.M.

4.) [MEDICATION NAME] 17 Grams by mouth every other day at 10:00 A.M.

The Surveyor reviewed the medication omissions with Nurse #1. Nurse #1 said that she thought the medication administration times were different than 10:00 A.M. for those medications. The Medication Administration Record [REDACTED].M. and according to the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. On 6/8/17 the Surveyor reviewed the medication pass times with the Director of Nursing and Administrator.

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

Based on observation, staff and family interviews and medical record and policy reviews the facility failed to:

1. ensure a comprehensive and effective infection control program to include inter-disciplinary analysis of data for potential infection control trends. The facility collected infection data, however failed to analyze data to identify triggers for a more focused review of potential clusters of infection.

The facility ICP also failed to monitor for the resolution of infections and therefore, making it difficult for the facility to distinguish true infection rates for threshold comparisons and performance improvement strategies, if indicated.

2. ensure that staff wash/sanitize their hands between residents while administering medications and to prevent the potential for cross-contamination between residents.

Findings include:

1. On 6/8/17 at 1:15 P.M. the Surveyor interviewed the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) who is also responsible for oversight of the facility’s Infection Control Program (ICP). According to the Federal requirements for recognizing and containing outbreaks; it is important that the facility know how to recognize and contain infectious outbreaks. An outbreak is is typically one or more of the following:

* One case of an infection that is highly communicable

* Trends that are 10% higher than the historical rate of infection for the facility that may reflect an outbreak or seasonal variation and therefore warrant further investigation; or

* An occurrence of 3 or more cases of the same infection over a specified length of time on the same unit.

The SDC and the Surveyor reviewed the IC linelisting for the last quarter (March, April and May 2017). The Surveyor asked the SDC if there were any quality improvement measures implemented as a result of a urinary tract infection spike (6 UTIs/33 residents or 18% of residents) with positive healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in 3/2017 from one unit. The SDC said no. The Surveyor also asked if there were discussions or interventions (for example, staff audits for adherence to IC protocols) with the staff or Medical Director about 5 HAIs for pneumonia in 4/2017 on the same unit (5/33 or 15%). The SDC could not provide any documenation of an analysis to determine if further investigation or notification (Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences at Massachusetts Department of Public Health) was indicated. The SDC said that she would consider an outbreak as 2 or more cases.

2. Based on observation during the medication pass and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff adhered to infection control practices by not washing/sanitizing hands before and after direct contact with residents. Hand hygiene continues to be the primary means of preventing the transmission of infection.

On 6/7/17, the Surveyor observed the medication pass with Nurse #1 at 10:00 A.M. Nurse #1 The Surveyor observed a bottle of hand sanitizer hanging off to the side of the medication cart. The Surveyor observed Nurse #1 touch residents’ hands in the hallway and dining room, ID bracelets and trash bag on medication cart without sanitizing hands.

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 interviews the facility failed to ensure accurately transcribed physician’s orders for 2 Residents (#8 and #11), from a total sample of 20 residents.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #8, the facility failed to correctly transcribe/edit the Physician’s order for [MEDICATION NAME].

Resident #8 was a long term care Resident with multiple [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. A review of the 6/2017 Physician’s order and Medication Administration Record [REDACTED]. The [MEDICATION NAME] tablets are supplied at a dosage of 325 mg. tablets or 500 mg. tablets.

During interview and record review on 6/7/17 at 1:10 P.M., Unit Nurse Manager #3 said the order was incorrect and should have read that the Resident received two tablets of the 325 mg. dose and said it was an editing issue. The Physician’s order was initiated 5/4/17 and transcribed incorrectly for 6/2017.

2. For Resident #11 the facility failed to correctly transcribe the physician’s order for [MEDICATION NAME] (an anti-hypertensive medication also used to treat heart failure and chest pain).

Resident #11 is a short term care Resident admitted ,[DATE] after having pneumonia, dysphagia, vocal paralysis and had a gastrostomy tube placed 4/10/17. A review of the Physician’s order indicated that on 5/17/17 the Physician ordered [MEDICATION NAME] 25 mg. twice daily and the medication was to be held if the heart rate was below 54.

A review of the May 2017 Medication Administration Record [REDACTED]. The Resident received the medication from 5/17/17 – 5/31/17 without documenting the heart rate. The June 2017 listed the medication correctly with the parameter of the heart rate. During interview on 6/6/17 at 3:30 P.M., Unit Nurse Manager # 1 said the May order was not transcribed correctly and the heart rate was not included in the Physician’s order.

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 records reviewed and interviews, for one of 3 sampled residents (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure that Resident #1’s dignity was maintained regarding his/her toileting needs. On 09/16/16, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 reportedly put two incontinence briefs on Resident #1 and told him/her to urinate into the incontinence briefs, and not to ring the call light if he/she needed assistance to the bathroom, or words to that effect.

Findings include:

The Minimum Data Set, (MDS) assessment, dated 07/07/16, indicated that Resident #1 was cognitively intact, required the extensive assistance of one person with toileting needs, and was occasionally incontinent (unable to control function) of bowel and bladder. Resident #1’s Plan of Care, dated 02/04/16, indicated for staff to remind Resident #1 to call for assistance as needed, to have the call light within his/her reach while he/she was in his/her room, and to assist Resident #1 with toileting as needed. The Activity of Daily Living Flow Sheet, dated September 2016, utilized by the Facility’s Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) indicated Resident #1 required limited assistance from one person with toileting needs, and was continent of bladder.

The Facility’s Internal Investigation File indicated that on 09/16/16, Resident #1 and CNA #2 reported that CNA #1 put two incontinence briefs on Resident #1. The Investigation indicated that Resident #1 said CNA #1 told Resident #1 to go in the incontinence briefs, and not to ring his/her call light. Resident #1 identified the CNA involved as CNA #1, and reported that the alleged incident occurred on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift ending on 09/16/16. The Investigation included a Punch Detail report, which indicated that CNA #1 punched in to the Facility at 2:53 P.M. on 09/15/16, and punched out of the Facility at 6:00 A.M. on 09/16/16.

The Surveyor interviewed CNA #1 at 11:28 A.M. on 11/08/16. CNA #1 declined to speak with the Surveyor regarding the alleged incident. The Facility’s Internal Investigation included documentation of an interview with CNA #1 on 09/17/16. The documentation indicated that CNA #1 remembered assisting Resident #1 with incontinence care several times during the night of 09/15/16 into 09/16/16. The documentation indicated that CNA #1 said he did not place two incontinence briefs on Resident #1, and that he knew the policy was for one incontinence brief and one incontinence pad. The documentation indicated that CNA #1 said he did not tell Resident #1 to go in his/her incontinence brief.

The Surveyor interviewed CNA #2 at 11:05 A.M. on 11/08/16. CNA #2 said that when she assisted Resident #1 to the bathroom for morning care, on 9/16/16, Resident #1 told her that CNA #1 put two incontinence briefs on him/her so he/she could go in the incontinence briefs instead of calling for help with the bedpan. CNA #2 said Resident #1 also told her that CNA #1 told Resident #1 not to use the call light again. CNA #2 said that when she removed Resident #1’s incontinence brief, she found a second incontinence brief underneath that was so soaked with urine that it was dripping onto the floor. CNA #2 said the outermost incontinence brief was also wet with urine.

The Surveyor interviewed Resident #1 at 10:54 A.M. on 11/08/16. Resident #1 said she could not recall the exact time, but that after he/she rang the call light for assistance to use the bathroom a second time on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift, CNA #1 told him/her that he was putting two incontinence briefs on Resident #1 so that if he/she had to use the bathroom again, he/she could just go in the incontinence briefs. Resident #1 said CNA #1 also told him/her not to use the call light again. Resident #1 said he/she was angry when the incident occurred.

Wingate at Norton, 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 28, 2017

Call Now Button