Wow is right, but then the jury was evidently sending a message. If the nursing home just put him in a bed & did nothing else until somebody discovered him dead 9 days later, then shame on them, get out the checkbook.
Must have been a “blind” loving family, who came everyday to visit but didn’t notice he was dehydrated, starving to death and had bed sores in his first nine days at the home. Call me callous but 42 mill for a 90 year old man who’s family dumped him off in a nursing home to die? Seems a little much.
Hey Callous,
Read the article. His wife was caring for him at home prior to his transfer to a nursing home. I am quite sure she did not “dump him there to die”.
Hey youngin, when my father was no longer able to be cared for at home, we checked out several homes and then one or more family members visited him daily until the end. I hate to be your child – you’d dump me off at a Lester the Molester’s Day care and then sue when I got abused.
Agree with all this verdict is outrageous and the judge should have reduced it significantly. Instead of unjustly enriching survivors who didn’t depend on him for support, any award should go to a fund that will actually do some good. Like cancer research or the American Heart Association. Our legal system is antiquated and needs reform. Why should this guy’s family get a windfall because he died? (of course it’s never about the money)
This guy lived longer than most until his STROKE that probably left him with a pulse but no quality of life. This death was a blessing in disguise.
$40 million of the award was for punitive damages, and although I believe in the concept of punishment for negligence, this amount appears to be extraordinarily high given the age and condition of the man involved. Unfortunately, we will all bear the burden of this award through increased insurance premiums unless this company is self-insured.
The degree of punishment (the point of punitive damages) should be proportional to the age of the victim, not the degree of negligence? How does that make sense?
Aside that your comments are self-rightous and inhumane, the choice of nursing homes might have been limited by availability, money or something else. Visits might be limited if the family lived out of state and lacked the funds to travel or had disabilities themselves. The expectation is that, whatever your choice, care is not withheld. Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll be reading soon that the punitive damages were lowered anyway.
I don’t know all the facts, but $42 million is too much for any death. I’m sure there was some neglect, but lets limit the amounts for gosh sakes.
Most of that is probably punitive damages. It takes a lot of negligence to kill someone in 9 days, if that is in fact what happened.
It had to be neglect because 92 year-old men that are infirm enough to be put in a nursing home never die otherwise.
Wow is right, but then the jury was evidently sending a message. If the nursing home just put him in a bed & did nothing else until somebody discovered him dead 9 days later, then shame on them, get out the checkbook.
Must have been a “blind” loving family, who came everyday to visit but didn’t notice he was dehydrated, starving to death and had bed sores in his first nine days at the home. Call me callous but 42 mill for a 90 year old man who’s family dumped him off in a nursing home to die? Seems a little much.
Hey Callous,
Read the article. His wife was caring for him at home prior to his transfer to a nursing home. I am quite sure she did not “dump him there to die”.
Hey youngin, when my father was no longer able to be cared for at home, we checked out several homes and then one or more family members visited him daily until the end. I hate to be your child – you’d dump me off at a Lester the Molester’s Day care and then sue when I got abused.
That’s great. What does it have to do with the article or me?
…that’s “CHESTER the Molester,” Callous…you sound like Biff Tannen! LOL
Agree with all this verdict is outrageous and the judge should have reduced it significantly. Instead of unjustly enriching survivors who didn’t depend on him for support, any award should go to a fund that will actually do some good. Like cancer research or the American Heart Association. Our legal system is antiquated and needs reform. Why should this guy’s family get a windfall because he died? (of course it’s never about the money)
This guy lived longer than most until his STROKE that probably left him with a pulse but no quality of life. This death was a blessing in disguise.
$40 million of the award was for punitive damages, and although I believe in the concept of punishment for negligence, this amount appears to be extraordinarily high given the age and condition of the man involved. Unfortunately, we will all bear the burden of this award through increased insurance premiums unless this company is self-insured.
The degree of punishment (the point of punitive damages) should be proportional to the age of the victim, not the degree of negligence? How does that make sense?
Aside that your comments are self-rightous and inhumane, the choice of nursing homes might have been limited by availability, money or something else. Visits might be limited if the family lived out of state and lacked the funds to travel or had disabilities themselves. The expectation is that, whatever your choice, care is not withheld. Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll be reading soon that the punitive damages were lowered anyway.