LEGAL EAGLE EYE NEWSLETTER
For the Nursing Profession


Request a complimentary copy
of our current newsletter


What is our mission?

What publication formats are available?

How do I start a subscription?

Can I cancel and get a refund?

Does my subscription renew automatically?


 

 

WHAT IS OUR MISSION?
      Our mission is to reduce nurses' fear of the law and to minimize nurses' exposure to litigation.  Nurse managers need to spot potential legal problems and prevent them before they happen. Managers and clinical nurses need to be familiar with how the law is applied by the courts to specific patient-care situations, so that they can act with confidence.  
    We work toward our goals every month by highlighting the very latest important Federal and state court decisions and new Federal regulations directly affecting nurses in hospitals, long term care facilities and home health agencies. We focus on nursing negligence and nurses' employment and licensing issues.    Our readers are professionals in nursing management, nursing education, clinical nursing, healthcare risk management, legal nurse consulting and law.

WHAT PUBLICATION FORMATS ARE AVAILABLE?
     The Email Edition is our most popular format.  You receive the newsletter as a PDF file attachment in an email sent to you every month.  On any computer or mobile device you simply click the file attachment to open, read, download, and/or print the newsletter. 
    The Email Edition is ideally suited to individuals.  It can also be used by large institutions.  Within an institution, like a hospital or university nursing department, an individual subscriber can forward pertinent articles to colleagues within the institution.  The content cannot be forwarded outside the institution or posted online.   An example might be a nursing director or director of nursing education who shares articles with nurse managers in individual clinical departments.
   The Online Edition is a format suited to educational and healthcare facility libraries with multiple users.  We send a link via email for the current monthly newsletter.  To open the link to the newsletter for that month the subscriber or other user must be using a computer or device whose IP address or range of IP addresses we have authenticated and given permission for online access.
     Print, Email and Online formats contain exactly the same content, eight pages with no advertising.

HOW DO I START A SUBSCRIPTION?

    The links below go to secure online sites maintained for us by Square, Inc. for credit and debit card purchases.  At checkout you will provide your name, payment information and email address.

Email Subscription $120/year

Print / Print + Email Subscription $155/year


     If you prefer, you can download and print an order form to mail or to scan and email to us.  Checks, credit and debit cards, purchase orders accepted, or we will bill you.  Order Form

CAN I CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION AND GET A REFUND?
     Yes. Just ask and the unused portion of your subscription will be refunded.

DOES MY SUBSCRIPTION RENEW AUTOMATICALLY?
     No. Before your annual subscription runs out you will receive a renewal notice by email and regular mail.

 

 

Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter

For the Nursing Profession

PO Box 1342 Sedona AZ 86339

(206) 718-0861 

 

info@nursinglaw.com 

 

 

 

Retaliation: Nurse Fired For Reporting Patient-Care Violations Can Sue, Court Says 

  Quick Summary: Nursing home employees are legally obligated to prevent abuse and neglect of nursing home residents. They can lose their licenses and face prosecution for failing to report abuse or neglect.

An employer who terminates such an employee for fulfilling this legal obligation is exposed to a civil lawsuit from the employee for retaliation.

There is no legal right to fire an employee summarily when termination would contravene a recognized public policy.

The public policy of protecting nursing home residents from abuse and neglect is fundamental and well-defined.  SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, 1997.

 

   A nurse and a clinical social worker were suspended from their jobs in a private-sector nursing home after they brought their concerns over the quality of patient care to the home’s administration and then took the issue up through channels at the state ombudsman’s office.

   They sued the nursing home in civil court for damages for wrongful retaliation, but their suit was denied by the local trial court. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin overruled the lower court, ruled they had the right to sue, and wrote an extensive opinion for guidance in future cases.

   The state bureau of quality compliance investigated the nurse’s and social worker’s complaints about the facility. The bureau did not issue any citations to the facility or even interview the nurse or the social worker or other members of the interdisciplinary quality control team. However, it was not relevant for the court whether the nurse’s and social worker’s concerns were validated after the fact by state officials. They still were right to go forward with their concerns, and could sue over their employer’s reprisals.

   State regulations for nursing homes forbid facilities from retaliating against employees who voice complaints over patient care issues. This gives state authorities the option of levying fines against nursing homes for such conduct. However, the court ruled, it does not give just anyone a right to sue for employer retaliation.

   Only professionals who have direct responsibility for patient care, and who are dealing with matters directly within the scope of their individual responsibilities are given the right to sue for employer retaliation for complaints to administration or to state authorities over patient care.

   As Resident Care Coordinator, this nurse had wide-ranging responsibility for the quality of patient care, and corresponding broad legal protection for going to the state ombudsman when the facility’s administration ignored her, the court ruled.

   It was critically important to the court that the nurse and social worker were members of the interdisciplinary care team. The nurse was Resident Care Coordinator. The social worker was Director of Social Services. Specific instances of sub-standard care as they reflected the overall quality of care at the institution were directly within the sphere of their job responsibilities. In fact, these two professionals were required, by law and by the ethics of their professions, to take action affirmatively to remedy situations causing them concern for residents’ welfare.

   To sue for employer retaliation, the issue at stake must have some bearing on the public interest, the courts have been saying. This court ruled very explicitly that protecting nursing home residents from abuse and neglect is a very important fundamental public policy concern.

   The other side of the coin is that professional employees do not have a right to sue their employers for retaliation over complaints to administration or to state authorities about goings-on at a care facility that do not involve prevention of abuse and neglect of residents, the court said, unless there is a very specific legal provision, e.g. reporting Medicare/Medicaid fraud, that gives a right to sue. Hausman vs. Care Center, 571 N.W. 2d 393 (Wis., 1997).

 

More references from nursinglaw.com

http://www.nursinglaw.com/abuse-reporting-nurse.htm

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/bad-faith-abuse-reporting.htm

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/abusereport.htm

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/abuse-patient.htm

 

http://www.nursinglaw.com/nurse-abuse-prevention.htm