Good Samaritan - Flanagan Abuse and Neglect Lawyers

Nursing home residents are often the victims of abuse, neglect, and mistreatment at the hands of caregivers, visitors, employees, and other patients. These victimized residents are physically, mentally, or emotionally abused, sexually assaulted, or mistreated through neglect by those in charge of providing them with the highest level of care.

If your loved one was injured while residing in a Livingston County nursing facility, contact the Illinois Nursing Home Law Center attorneys for immediate legal intervention. Our team of Chicago nursing home lawyers has successfully handled a result of cases exactly like yours. Let us work on your behalf beginning today to ensure that your family is adequately compensated for your losses and that those responsible for your harm are held legally and financially accountable.

Good Samaritan - Flanagan

This long-term care (LTC) home is a 60-certified bed Center providing cares and services to residents of Flanagan and Livingston County, Illinois. The Medicare/Medicaid-participating "not for profit" facility is located at:

205 N Adams St
Flanagan, Illinois, 61740
(815) 792-0053
Fined $40,398 for substandard care

Financial Penalties and Violations

The investigators for the federal government and state of Illinois nursing home regulatory agencies have the legal authority to impose monetary fines or deny payment for Medicare services if the nursing facility is cited for serious violations of rules and regulations.

Within the last three years, nursing home regulatory agencies imposed a $40,398 penalty against Good Samaritan - Flanagan due to substandard care. Over the last thirty-six months, Medicare denied payment for services rendered. The facility also received five formally filed complaints and self-reported six serious issues that all resulted in citations.

Additional information about this permanently closed nursing home, fines and penalties can be found on the Illinois Department of Public Health Nursing Home Reporting Website concerning this nursing facility.

Flanagan Illinois Nursing Home Safety Concerns

One Star Rating

The state of Illinois routinely updates their long-term care home database system to reflect all opened investigations, safety concerns, filed complaints, incident inquiries, health violations, and dangerous hazards. This information can be found on numerous sites including the IL Department of Public Health and

According to Medicare, this facility maintains an overall rating of one out of five stars, including one out of five stars concerning health inspections, one out of five stars for staffing issues and three out of five stars for quality measures. The Livingston County neglect attorneys at Nursing Home Law Center have found serious deficiencies and safety concerns at Good Samaritan - Flanagan that include:

    Failure to Provide an Environment Free of Unnecessary Physical Restraints

    In a summary statement of deficiencies dated June 22, 2017, the state investigative team noted that the facility had failed to “assess and obtain a physician’s orders” for the use of physical restraints. A review of a resident’s MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment dated April 10, 2017, shows that the patient has a “limited range of motion to bilateral upper extremities.”

    The state investigative team reviewed the resident’s Care Plan dated April 10, 2017, that shows that the patient “may where mitts/gloves/socks on his hands to prevent scratching as needed, related to [their medical condition] and to remove when the staff is supervising [the resident].” The surveyors observed the resident lying in bed on the morning of June 19, 2017. At that time, the patient’s “upper extremities were bent, and [their] hands were up by [their] chest.”

    During that observation, the resident “had socks on [their] bilateral hands.” A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) “was providing cares to [the resident and said that the resident] where socks because [they are] a chronic itcher. It is the way of protecting [the patient’s] skin.”

    Failure to follow protocols when using physical restraints which requires informed consent – IL State Inspector

    The surveyors asked how often the resident socks are removed. The CNA responded that the patient “wears them at all times except when bathing.” A follow-up observation was made of the resident at noon on June 19, 2017, while “sitting up in the dining room and fed by [a different CNA].” At that time, the patient’s “arms were bent with hands up by their chest.” The resident’s “hands were covered with socks.”

    The surveyors reviewed the resident’s medical records which “did not contain a physician order” for the physical restraints.” During an interview with the facility Director of Nursing, it was confirmed that the patient “wears socks on [their] hands at all times except when bathing, every morning and night, for scratching.” The Director also said that “socks restrict [the resident’s] ability to scratch” and confirmed that “there is not a physician’s order” for the use of physical restraint.”

    In a separate summary statement of deficiencies dated July 21, 2016, the state survey team noted that the nursing home had “failed to operationalize their physical restraint policy for one of two residents reviewed for physical restraints.” The investigator stated that “specifically, the facility failed to demonstrate the medical necessity for the ongoing use of physical restraint and failed to develop and implement a plan of care to assure physical restraint reduction.”

    The nursing home “also failed to ensure that the physical restraint was removed when indicated.” A review of the facility policy titled: Physical Restraint dated April 15, 2011 reads in part:

    “Physical restraints are defined as any manual method of a physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident’s body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one’s body.”

    “The definition of restraint is based on the functional status of the resident and not the device. If the resident cannot remove the device in the same manner in which it was applied, given that the resident’s physical condition and this restricts his/her ability to change position, that device is considered a restraint. The opportunity for motion and exercise is provided for a period of not less than ten minutes during each two hours in which the restraints are employed.”

  • Failure to Immediately Notify the Resident, the Resident’s Doctor or Family Members of a Change in the Resident’s Condition Including a Decline in Their Health or Injury
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated April 7, 2016, the state investigator documented the facility’s failure to “notify the family and physician of an abuse allegation and a bruise of unknown origin.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff and administration involved two of three residents “reviewed for notification.”

    One incident involved a severely cognitively impaired resident who was observed on the morning of April 6, 2016, sitting in their “wheelchair at the nurse’s station.” The resident “had a dark purple bruise to the right wrist and the back of the right hand.” The patient “was not able to state what happened to cause of bruising or how [they were] treated by staff at the facility.”

    A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at the facility said that “I do not know what happened, nothing was passed on to the report.” The LPN then check the resident’s “file and stated, there is nothing documented as to what happened or when they were noticed.”

    The investigators interviewed the facility Director of Nursing on the morning of April 6, 2016 who said that the resident “was part of an abuse allegation last week (March 30, 2016), it was reported that a nurse was pinching [the patient’s] nose and holding [the patient’s] head while giving a medication.” The Director said that Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) “had been asked to hold [the resident’s] hands down by the nurse.” The Director said that they did an assessment on the resident on March 31, 2016, and “there was no bruising at that time, there was no injury. After doing a new assessment of [the resident, the Director confirmed that the resident] does have bruising on the wrists and the back of the hand and stated, [that] nobody reported this.”

    The Director “confirmed that it appeared as if someone’s hand was on top of [the patient’s] hand and the other person’s thumb was in a resting position that would be placed on the wrist.” The Director said that “that is definitely a suspicious bruise, especially due to the location of the bruise on the wrist, but I promise you, it was not there on March 31, 2016, after the abuse allegation.”

    The Director said that “when the bruise was noticed, it should have been reported to the nurse and documented so that we could keep an eye on it for [any] further breakdown, and the physician should be notified.”

  • Failure to Provide Residents an Environment Free of Accident Hazards
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated June 22, 2017, the state investigators documented that the facility had failed to “safely transfer one of two residents reviewed for falls.” The surveyor said that “this failure resulted in [the resident] obtaining an acute displaced fracture of the distal one-third of the femoral diaphysis of the left leg.”

    The survey team also noted that the nursing home had “failed to properly apply a knee brace for ambulation and implement interventions” after another resident was injured.” The surveyors say that “based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to secure used sharps/needles. This failure has the potential to affect all thirteen residents who reside in the facility.”

  • Failure to Develop Policies and Procedures for Influenza and Pneumococcal Immunizations
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated June 22, 2017, the state surveyors stated that the nursing home had failed to “follow physician’s orders for the administration of the pneumococcal vaccine.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff involved one resident.

    The nursing home also “failed to document consent for, and education of the benefits and potential side effects, of the influenza vaccine for one of five residents, reviewed for immunizations.” A review of one resident’s physician’s orders dated November 2, 2016 documents, “please vaccinate with Prevnar 13 (pneumonia vaccine) if not already given in the last three years.”

    The survey team reviewed a resident’s Electronic Medical Records that show that the resident “received the pneumonia vaccine on September 23, 2013, which was over the three-year time span given by the physician. There is no documentation in [the resident’s] medical record that the pneumonia vaccine was administered as ordered on November 2, 2016, or that any follow-up communication was done with [the physician].”

    The surveyors interviewed the Quality Assurance Nurse on the morning of June 19, 2017, who said that “she could not find documentation that [the patient] received or refused the pneumonia vaccine as ordered.” A review of a second resident’s Inactive Flu (Influenza) Vaccination form dated October 13, 2016, revealed that the resident “received the flu vaccine.” However, “there is no documentation in the medical records documenting consent to receive the flu vaccine or that education of the benefits of potential side effects of the influenza vaccine was given to [the second resident].”

    The Quality Assurance Nurse verified that “there is no documentation of consent to receive the flu vaccine or that education of the benefits of potential side effects of the influenza vaccine were given to [the second resident].”

  • Failure to Provide and Implement an Infection Protection and Control Program
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated June 22, 2017, a state surveyor noted the nursing home's failure to “follow up with the physician for proper treatment orders for urinary tract infection.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff involved one of three residents “reviewed for urinary tract infections.”

    The surveyors also noted that the “facility failed to ensure nebulizer machines and equipment were properly clean and stored.” This deficient practice involved two of eight residents at the facility with urinary tract infections involving E. coli.

Do You Need More Answers about Good Samaritan - Flanagan? We Can Help

Do you believe that your loved one was mistreated, neglected or abused while living at Good Samaritan – Flanagan? If so, call the Illinois nursing home abuse and neglect lawyers at Nursing Home Law Center at (800) 926-7565 today. Our network of attorneys fights aggressively on behalf of Livingston County victims of mistreatment living in long-term facilities including nursing homes in Flanagan. Contact us now to schedule a free case review to discuss how to obtain justice and resolve a financial compensation claim.

Our skilled attorneys can work on your family’s behalf to successfully resolve your financial recompense claim against all those who caused your loved one harm. We file claims against nursing homes, medical centers, doctors and nursing staff. Our attorneys accept every case concerning wrongful death, personal injury and nursing home abuse through a contingency fee arrangement. This agreement postpones the need to pay for legal services until after we have resolved your case through a negotiated out of court settlement or jury trial award.

We offer every client a “No Win/No-Fee” Guarantee. This promise ensures that you will owe us nothing if we cannot obtain compensation on your behalf. We can provide legal representation starting today to ensure your family is adequately compensated for your damages. All information you share with our law offices will remain confidential.


Client Reviews

Jonathan did a great job helping my family navigate through a lengthy lawsuit involving my grandmother's death in a nursing home. Through every step of the case, Jonathan kept my family informed of the progression of the case. Although our case eventually settled at a mediation, I really was impressed at how well prepared Jonathan was to take the case to trial. Lisa
After I read Jonathan’s Nursing Home Blog, I decided to hire him to look into my wife’s treatment at a local nursing home. Jonathan did a great job explaining the process and the laws that apply to nursing homes. I immediately felt at ease and was glad to have him on my side. Though the lawsuit process was at times frustrating, Jonathan reassured me, particularly at my deposition. I really felt like Jonathan cared about my wife’s best interests, and I think that came across to the lawyers for the nursing home. Eric