Reference no: EM133309423

Topic: The operator of a nursing facility appealed an order by the Department of Public Welfare revoking his license because of resident abuse in Nepa v. Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare. Substantial evidence supported the department's finding. Three former employees testified that the nursing facility operator had abused residents in the following incidents:

He unbuckled the belt of one of the residents, causing his pants to drop, and then grabbed a second resident, forcing them to kiss. (Petitioner's excuse for this behavior was to shame the resident because of his masturbating in public.)

On two occasions he forced a resident to remove toilet paper from a commode after she had urinated and defecated in it. (Denying that there was fecal matter in the commode, the petitioner made the excuse that this would stop the resident from filling the commode with toilet paper.)

He verbally abused a resident who was experiencing difficulty in breathing and accused him of faking as he attempted to feed him liquids.

The nursing facility operator claimed that the finding of fact were not based on substantial evidence and that even if they were, the incidents did not amount to abuse under the code. The defendant attempted to discredit the witness with allegations from a resident and another that one of his former employees got into bed with a resident and that another had taken a picture of a male resident while in the shower and had placed a baby bottle and a humiliating sign around the neck of another resident. The court was not impressed. Although these incidents, if true, were reprehensible, they were collateral matters that had no bearing on the witnesses' reputation for truthfulness and therefore could not be used for impeachment purposes. The court held that there was substantial evidence supporting the department's decision and that the activities committed by the operator were sufficient to support revocation of his license:

We believe Petitioner treatment of these resident as found by the hearing examiner to be truly disturbing. These residents were elderly and/or mentally incapacitated and wholly dependent on Petitioner while residing in his home. As residents, they are entitled to maintain their dignity and be cared for with respect, concern, and compassion.

Petitioner testified that he did not have adequate training to deal with the patients he received who suffered from mental problems. Petitioner's lack of training in this area is absolutely no excuse for the reprehensible manner in which he treated various residents. According, DPW's order revoking Petitioner's license to operate a personal care home is affirmed.

Question 1. Do the facts of this case support the court's finding? Discuss your answer.

Question 2. Discuss why senior citizens are often reluctant to report abuse.