June 25, 2017

Archives for August 18, 2016

Social Media Abuse of Elders

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Barbara Cashman’s Denver Elder Law Blog on August 10, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

CashmanBy Barbara Cashman, Esq.

I recently came across this horrifying article published Monday in ProPublica, entitled “Federal Health Officials Seek to Stop Social Media Abuse of Nursing Home Residents.” It seems that some staff members of nursing homes are publishing photos, audio and video recordings of some residents in the social media like Snapchat, Facebook or Instagram, or sent in text messages as multimedia attachments. These pictures, audio, and video files often depict elder residents of the facilities in demeaning and humiliating ways so as to result in mental abuse. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently sent out a memorandum concerning this to the State Survey Directors.

Do the skilled nursing facilities have prohibitions against such intrusions in place? Some evidently did not, but there can be little doubt that nearly all will have such protections in place soon in light of these disturbing developments. Here’s an article about such violations in Ohio nursing facilities.

The CMS memo referred to above defines mental abuse as that abuse which:

[M]ay occur through either verbal or nonverbal conduct which causes or has the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation or degradation.  Examples of verbal or nonverbal conduct that can cause mental abuse include but are not limited to: nursing home staff taking photographs or recordings or residents that are demeaning or humiliating using any type of equipment (e.g., cameras, smart phone, and other electronic devices) and keeping or distributing them through multimedia messages or on social media networks.  Depending on what was photographed or recorded, physical and/or sexual abuse may also be identified.

ProPublica has been following this following these developments for many months; this article from December 21, 2015 details some of the incidents this mental and physical abuse of incapacitated elders perpetrate by the nursing home staff members. In a case in New York where a nurse aide took photos of an incontinent resident’s genitals covered in fecal matter and shared them with another staff member on Snapchat, he was fired and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of willful violation of health laws. What I found particularly disturbing was the comment of one home’s administrator to ProPublica that “[t]echnology is a problem for us, for everybody, these days… The resident involved was not harmed but certainly it was a serious incident.” Are incapacitated nursing home residents not entitled to any human dignity and to be free from such exploitation for someone’s entertainment?

One of the incidents described by ProPublica is from August 2015. It occurred in a rural area of Colorado and involved a youth volunteer at a nursing home who took a selfie which showed a 108-year-old resident urinating. The volunteer apparently shared the photo with her friends at school and the facility did not learn of the offending photo until months later. The volunteer was not monitored by the facility but did report to the local police, and was later charged with invasion of privacy.

What is human dignity when it cannot be defended by an incapacitated elder? What is human dignity when it is not readily apparent or recognized in places where people are institutionalized for the paramount concern of their safety?

Dignity, as in the legal right, is not easily defined. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find many references to it in our laws. International law, specifically the international law of human rights, has much more to say about human dignity, but that is another blog post!

I will close with just a couple observations and questions.

If humiliation is the opposite of being treated dignity and respect, is our system of laws really equipped to deal with this type of new frontier of the rights of incapacitated persons to be free from intrusions by others who humiliate them for sport or humor?

Is the dignity of or respect for elders a right in this context or is it overshadowed by our concerns for safety, and how does an incapacitated elder’s diminishing bailiwick of autonomy factor into this equation?

On this note, here is a link to an interesting article about the dignity of elders. More to come on this very challenging topic.

© 2016 Barbara Cashman  www.DenverElderLaw.org

 

Barbara Cashman is a solo practitioner in Denver, focusing on elder law, estate law, and mediation. She is active in the Trust & Estate and Elder Law sections of the CBA and is a past chair of the Solo/Small Firm section. She is a CAMP mentor and blogs weekly on her law firm blog, where this post originally appeared. She can be contacted at barb@DenverElderLaw.org.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Tenth Circuit: No Constitutional Violation Where Court Denied Counsel’s Request for Review of Classified Documents

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Lustyik on Monday, August 15, 2016.

Robert Lustyik was an FBI agent who tried to help his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, with Taylor’s security business, American International Security Corporation (AISC). The Department of Defense offered AISC a contract in 2007 to provide training to Afghan Special Forces, and in 2010 the United States began investigating AISC for fraud and money laundering related to the 2007 DOD contract. The United States filed a civil forfeiture action against AISC’s assets in 2011, resulting in the seizure of more than $5 million from Taylor’s bank account. Lustyik attempted to impede the government’s investigation of Taylor by using his status as an FBI agent, including trying to establish Taylor as a confidential source. Taylor assured Lustyik that he would receive financial compensation for his assistance.

In 2012, a federal grand jury indicted Lustyik, Taylor, and their middle-man on charges of conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of agency proceedings. The United States disclosed over one million pages of unclassified discovery, plus 10,000 pages of classified information. Despite revocation of his security clearance, Lustyik was allowed to review nearly 7,000 pages of the classified material. Through his counsel, Lustyik filed a Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) motion, identifying which classified information they wished to present at trial. The court denied Lustyik’s motion after an ex parte meeting with defense counsel. During the first few days of Lustyik’s trial, Lustyik pleaded guilty to all eleven counts with no plea agreement. After pleading guilty but before sentencing, Lustyik’s lead counsel withdrew and the court appointed new counsel. Lustyik filed a motion to obtain security clearance for the new attorney, which a magistrate denied.

At sentencing, the court addressed counsel’s inability to access the classified information, noting that it would not add to counsel’s ability to argue for his client. Defense counsel presented significant mitigating evidence and obtained a downward variance from the Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, and Lustyik was sentenced to 120 years imprisonment. He appealed, arguing his constitutional rights were violated when his counsel was denied access to the confidential materials.

The Tenth Circuit evaluated Lustyik’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation under de novo review. The Circuit noted that the right to counsel is presumptively violated only where the circumstances are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigation is unjustified. Lustyik claimed his counsel’s limited ability to review classified materials fatally undercut his effectiveness and prevented him from adequately testing the government’s position. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding the presumption of prejudice inapplicable. Because Lustyik failed to show that the district court’s denial created a constitutional violation, the Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and found none. The Tenth Circuit found ample record support for the district court’s conclusions regarding the classified information.

The government conceded on appeal that Lustyik’s sentence may have been illegal, so the Tenth Circuit remanded for sentencing clarification. The Tenth Circuit otherwise affirmed the denial of security clearance.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/18/2016

On Thursday, August 18, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 25 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/17/2016

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

United States v. Teague

United States v. Alonzo-Garcia

Retiree, Inc. v. Anspach

Kirk v. Flores

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.