health and safety of patients at Marina, although there was no finding of abuse. It appears that Summit Health does not operate a separate nursing home in Los Angeles, although it apparently operates a number of nursing homes throughout the Southwest. Furthermore, although the plaintiff seemed to contend at one point that the statute may not apply to a corporation, such as Summit Health, or Summit Care, the statute provides "the Secretary shall exclude the following individuals and entities from participation in any program . . . [and in any state health program where the] individual or entity  has been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under subchapter XVIII of this chapter or any other State health care program." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1320a-7(a)(1) (emphasis the Court's). The language would include a corporation.
In seeking a temporary restraining order, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable injury within the next ten days in the event the defendants are not enjoined. It is alleged that approximately eighty percent of the patients at Marina receive services paid for by Medicare or Medi-Cal; but plaintiff has not demonstrated that it cannot continue to operate, or perhaps even take in new patients, in the absence of the receipt of Medicare or Medi-Cal payments. Moreover, the Court was advised at the hearing that Medicare and Medi-Cal payments will continue for the next thirty days for any patients now living in the facility, although Medicare and Medi-Cal payments will not be made for any new patients. At the end of the thirty day period Medicare and Medi-Cal payments will cease; the apparent purpose of the thirty day period is to allow for the orderly removal or relocation of any patients who cannot afford to remain in plaintiff's facility absent Medicare for Medi-Cal payments. Within that thirty-day period, plaintiff can certainly move for a preliminary injunction, or file an appropriate motion for summary judgment addressing the legal issues relating to the termination of Medicare and Medi-Cal payments.
With respect to the question of whether other persons involved in the case are likely to suffer substantial injury if injunctive relief is granted, the Court notes only that the allegations made against Summit Health, and indirectly against the plaintiff, related to the treatment or health of two patients. There were no allegations of abuse, but the charges were sufficient to warrant the filing of a criminal complaint. In plaintiff's favor, the Court notes that a more recent investigation of plaintiff's facility appears to suggest that the plaintiff is providing reasonable service as required by the California statute and that the matters leading to the charges against Summit Health have been corrected. The Court is also aware that any movement of elderly citizens or disruption in their life style can be a traumatic experience. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in this case or that it will suffer immediate irreparable injury; the fact that injunctive relief may not cause substantial injury to others involved in the case does not warrant the granting of a temporary restraining order.
Finally, the public interest demands that elderly citizens receive adequate care.
Taking all of the above matters into consideration the Court concludes that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied.
It is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.