Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF) Abuse and Neglect Attorneys

Choosing the ideal nursing home location in your local community can be a challenging problem when it is time to place your loved one in the best facility in Lauderdale County. Sadly, abuse and neglect are severe rampant problems and caregiving facilities nationwide. In many incidents, the family is unaware that their loved one is being mistreated until a serious, life-threatening issue develops.

The Tennessee Nursing Home Law Center Attorneys have represented many victims of mistreatment and can help your family too. Our team of lawyers uses our extensive experience in criminal and civil law to immediately transfer your loved one to a better location and file paperwork to begin the process of obtaining financial compensation for their damages. Let us start working on your case now to hold those responsible for your damages legally and monetarily accountable.

Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF)

This Medicare/Medicaid-participating long-term care (LTC) center is a "for profit" 71-certified bed home providing cares to residents of Ripley and Lauderdale County, Tennessee. The facility is located at:

215 Lackey Lane
Ripley, Tennessee, 38063
(731) 635-5100
Financial Penalties and Violations

SFF Designation: Medicare has labeled Lauderdale Community Living Center as a Special Focus Facility (SSF) because of persistently substandard quality of care as determined by federal and state inspection teams. This designation means that the nursing home is subjected to more frequent surveys and inspections, escalating monetary penalties and the potential of being terminated from Medicaid and Medicare.

Both the state of Tennessee and federal agencies are legally obligated to monitor every nursing facility and impose monetary fines or deny payments through Medicare when investigators have found the nursing home seriously, violated established nursing home regulations and rules.

Fined $186,784 for substandard care

During the last three years, investigators have imposed one massive monetary penalty against Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF) on May 5, 2017, for $186,784.

Also, during the last thirty-six months, Medicare denied payment for services rendered on May 5, 2017, and the Nursing Home received two formally filed complaints and self-reported three serious issues that all resulted in citations. Additional documentation about fines and penalties can be found on the Tennessee Department of Health Nursing Home Reporting Website concerning this nursing facility.

Failure to protect residents from verbal abuse that resulted in the Director of nursing, Administrator and others resigning – TN State Inspector
Ripley Tennessee Nursing Home Patients Safety Concerns One Star Rating

To ensure the families are fully informed of the services and care that their long-term care facility offers in their community, the state of Tennessee routinely updates their comprehensive database. This information lists the opened investigations, incident inquiries, dangerous hazards, health violations, filed complaints, and safety concerns of nursing homes statewide and posts the resulting data on the TN Department of Public Health website and at Medicare.gov.

According to Medicare, this facility maintains an overall rating of one out of five stars, including one out of five stars concerning health inspections, two out of five stars for staffing issues and four out of five stars for quality measures. The Lauderdale County neglect attorneys at Nursing Home Law Center have found serious deficiencies and safety concerns at Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF) that include:

  • Failure to Ensure That Every Resident Is Free from the Use of Physical Restraints Unless Needed for Medical Treatment
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated may for 2017, the state investigator noted the nursing home’s failure to "ensure residents were free from physical restraints.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff involved one of thirty-four residents “reviewed for side rails in the Stage II review” that resulted in the death of the resident. The “failure of the facility to ensure [a patient], a vulnerable resident, was assessed, care planned, and had a physician’s order [for the restraint]” that ultimately led to her demise.

    The investigators initiated an Immediate Jeopardy situation because of provider noncompliance that “cause, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment or death to the resident.” The investigator cited the facility for Immediate Jeopardy which is considered “substandard quality of care.” The investigators reviewed the facility policy titled: Bed Rail Guideline that reads in part:

    “It is the policy of this center to limit the use of bed rails and similar devices unless the benefit outweighs the risk. No rails of any type will be applied to the bed without prior assessment as to the appropriateness of the use and device selected. This policy applies to the use of any type of rail attached to the bed. Maintain the placement of specialized support surfaces (low air loss or alternating pressure mattresses) within the bed frame.”

    “Care Plan interventions are implemented when bed rails are utilized and reviewed at least quarterly and as needed.”

    The investigators reviewed the resident’s physician’s orders and current Care Plan that “did not have documentation to use side rails.” A review of the resident’s Quarterly Evaluation Bundle documented that “the resident had not expressed a desire to have side rails raised while in bed. The resident did have fluctuations in the level of consciousness or a cognitive deficit.”

    The document showed that the “resident did have visual deficits. The resident was not able to get in and out of bed safely. The resident did not have a history of falls (at that day). The resident did have problems with balance or poor trunk control. The resident did not use side rails for positioning or support. The side rail did not help the resident rise from a supine position to a sitting/standing position.”

    Documentation shows that “there was no evidence the resident had (or may have had) a desire to get out of bed. The resident did receive medications that required safety precautions. On the form titled: Quarterly Evaluation Bundle Summary and Findings documented half rails left and right were marked. The resident did not request to have side rails while in bed. The section the documented side rails are indicated and served as an enabler to promote independence was marked ‘No.’ Side rails were not indicated at that time.”

    The investigators reviewed the resident’s Nurse’s Notes documented by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) that reflected “incorrect documentation aired out with a line through the documentation indicating it as incorrect. The documentation error reference revealed ‘called to resident’s room by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).’”

    The LPN documented that “a signed CNA was standing in the doorway of the resident’s room waiting for assistance. When I entered the room, the resident’s head was turned towards the headboard, and her neck was between the mattress and the side rail on the right side of the bed. Her body was off the bed, her bottom was on the floor, and her leg stretched out in front of her. Her right arm was up on the bed close to her head. With the assistance of the CNAs, we laid the resident on the floor.”

    The documentation also revealed that the Licensed Practical Nurse “felt for a pulse, listened for breathing and heartbeat. At this time, another nurse called the Director of Nursing while this nurse and CNAs transfer the resident to the bed. The Director of Nursing was called a 10:00 PM. The Medical Director was notified a 20 8:00 PM. The resident was bathed and dress by the CNAs.”

    The survey team reviewed the Director of Nursing’s Notes for 8:15 PM that documented “incorrect documentation aired out with a line through the documentation indicating it as incorrect.” That documentation revealed, “Observed resident lying in bed upon assessment with no pulse, no respirations noted, time of death pronounced at 8:10 PM, spoke with responsible party requests that [the funeral home] be called to transport the body to the funeral home.”

    The investigative team documented that the “Administrator was asked for all investigations conducted” within the time frame at the facility. However, that the Administrator “was unable to provide evidence the incident involving [the resident] was thoroughly investigated.”

    The investigators interviewed the Confidential Interviewee and asked, “if she knew any of the accidental death in the facility.” The confidential interviewee replied, “Yes, [the resident listed above].” When asked what happened, the Confidential Interviewee replied, she was in bed and fell out of the bed and got hung on the railing. She got caught up in the railing in the bed. Her legs were on the floor, and the neck was caught between the railings.”

    The survey team asked the confidential interviewee “if she meant the side rails?” The interviewee replied “Yes. She has an alarm, but it did not go off.” The interviewee stated that the alarm but only work if it was pressed real hard. When the resident “came out of the bed, [the alarm] did not make any noise.”

  • Failure to Protect Every Resident from All Abuse, Physical Punishment or Being Separated from Others
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated May 4, 2017, the state investigative team documented that the facility had failed to “protect one of thirteen residents of the thirty-four residents included in the Stage II review for abuse from verbal abuse in fear retaliation.”

    The surveyors noted that the resident “suffered verbal abuse resulting in psychological harm as evidenced by her tearful, emotional response during an interview.” The investigators reviewed the facility’s policy titled: Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Prevention Plan that reads in part:

    “The resident has the right to be free from abuse. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, facility staff. Psychosocial harm – Include but are not limited to extreme embarrassment, ongoing humiliation.”

    The investigators reviewed the cognitively stable resident’s medical records and MDS (Minimum Data Set) and the resident’s Psychiatric Progress Note dated September 12, 2016. These documents revealed that the resident “had a depressed and flat mood/affect and indicated no change in response to treatment.” The resident had been receiving an antidepressant medication that was increased to 20 mg every day.

    By October 26, 2016, the resident’s Psychiatric Progress Notes reveal that the resident’s mood/affect was within normal limits and “was improving in response to treatment.” By April 3, 2017, the Progress Notes show that the resident’s “mood/affect was within normal levels with a stable response to treatment and no change in medications.”

    The resident’s Social Service Note dated November 3, 2016, revealed that the resident “refuses to get up some days and states she does not feel like it. The resident’s Progress Notes dated January 18, 2017, documented, Psychiatric: Insight: good judgment. Memory: recent memory normal and remote memory normal.” However, by March 1, 2017, the physician’s Progress Notes documents “psychology sleep disturbance.”

    The survey team interviewed the resident who “would not answer the questions related to staff treatment until the surveyor [noted] specific concerns she had related to being intimidated, mentally or verbally mistreated.” The resident had begun to “say something, hesitated and stated, it would make things worse if I made the mad.”

    The documentation shows that “the survey team reentered the facility on May 3, 2017, to continue the investigation and it was discovered that the Director of Nursing, the Social Worker, and two Certified Nursing Assistants were suspended pending allegations of abuse and intimidation. The Administrator had also resigned.” When the survey team reentered the resident’s room after the resignations, she was asked “if she was ever mistreated or had someone speak partially to her while she was in the facility.

    The resident stated, “‘I been treated okay since y’all came. It is just the ones before y’all came that used to hurt my feelings and make me cry and say hateful things to me. The resident was asked who said those things to her. The resident stated, the Director of Nursing. The resident was asked what the Director of Nursing said. The resident stated, ‘one time, she said is there any way you can call your boyfriend. I need to talk to him.”

    The resident “called and said the Director of Nursing wants to speak to you. She said, hi, Mr. [the name of her boyfriend], I just want to make sure we are on the same page. [The resident] she is getting too big, and you need to stop bringing her pizza. I do not hate this place just the people that were here. The resident was asked if anyone else had talked to her like that. The resident stated, uh-uh (no) she was the only one ma’am. The resident was asked if there was anyone who was still there mistreating her. The resident stated, no ma’am; I have not seen those people since y’all been here so whatever y’all are doing, you are doing a good job.”

  • Failure to Provide and Implement an Infection Protection and Control Program
  • In a summary statement of deficiencies dated March 7, 2018, a state survey team noted the nursing home's failure to “prevent the spread of infection when tube feeding syringe is were not change within 24 hours on two of two residents reviewed with a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastronomy (PEG) tube.” The survey team reviewed the facility’s policy titled: Tube Feeding Syringe that reads in part: “The syringe shall be replaced every 24 hours with the new syringe.”

    The survey team reviewed the resident’s Ordered Summary Report dated March 7, 2018, and the resident’s medical records and made observations of the resident’s room on March 5, 2018. These observations “revealed a tube feeding syringe hanging above the feeding pump but the date of March 2, 2018.” The investigators interviewed the Director of Nursing later that morning and asked, “how often should a PEG tube syringe be replaced?” The Director responded, “They should change them out every night on the 11 to 7 [shift].”

Were You Abused or Neglected at Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF)? We Can Help

If your loved one has been injured or harmed while a resident at Lauderdale Community Living Center (SFF), call the Tennessee nursing home abuse and neglect attorneys at Nursing Home Law Center at (800) 926-7565 now. Our law firm fights aggressively on behalf of Lauderdale County victims of mistreatment living in long-term facilities including nursing homes in Ripley. Our seasoned attorneys represent residents who were harmed by caregiver negligence or abuse.

Contact us now to schedule a free case review to discuss how to obtain justice and resolve a financial compensation claim. Let us fight aggressively on your behalf to ensure your rights are protected.

Our law firm accepts all nursing home abuse lawsuits, personal injury claims, medical malpractice cases, and wrongful death suits through a contingency fee agreement. This arrangement will postpone the need to make a payment for our legal services until after our attorneys have resolved your case through a jury trial award or negotiated out of court settlement. We provide each client a “No Win/No-Fee” Guarantee, meaning you owe us nothing if we cannot obtain compensation for your damages.

Sources:
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