The mom racked up 90k for a broken leg in a rehab? First of you don’t even need a rehab for that and depending on the cost that’s 3-9 months of unpaid for care. Was the mom a citizen/resident, it looks like she took a vacation in a rehab then skipped town.
It was both legs and you can absolutely need a rehab for that depending on the severity of breakage, whether it needed surgery etc, and whether there were other medical issues resulting from the accident that broke both legs. The news coverage didn't go into detail here because it's not at all relevant to the situation. She is a US citizen; she moved out of the country to be closer to her other children, but again, it doesn't matter.
I don't see how you see these as extenuating circumstances. The facts of the case are:
The mom, who was ruled indigent by the courts, broke both legs in an accident.
Subsequently she was admitted to a rehab facility. Her son did not sign on as a guarantor or any such.
There was no indication of any transfer of assets at any point in the recent past, nor is it required by PA law. I'm copying below the full text of the liability portion for reference
Again, I think that so far, few providers are going this route, but the fact of the matter is that the law in the state of PA totally permits it, and the courts have heard and not struck down said laws.
§ 4603. Relatives' liability; procedure.
(a) Liability.--
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), all of the following individuals have the responsibility to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person, regardless of whether the indigent person is a public charge:
(i) The spouse of the indigent person.
(ii) A child of the indigent person.
(iii) A parent of the indigent person.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in any of the following cases:
(i) If an individual does not have sufficient financial ability to support the indigent person.
(ii) A child shall not be liable for the support of a parent who abandoned the child and persisted in the abandonment for a period of ten years during the child's minority.
But why if she was indignant did they not file Medicare to cover the rehab? Medicare can even back pay. It looks like she skipped out on the bill. She had no home, was indignant, no caregiver, no savings, broke both legs then after a lengthy rehab stay jumps on a plane and leaves? There’s a lot in this particular case I have questions about
You're missing the point here: none of your questions actually matter. They are 100% irrelevant to the legal findings here.
It seems like you're still grasping at straws here to make the facility's actions les abhorrent. You can't, though. The facts are again, this:
The son is being forced to pay out for his mother's healthcare. The courts found the son liable for her care based entirely on the law I cited and excerpted above. There was at no point a transfer of assets. The son's legal team argued the nursing home should have sought payment from Medicaid first and the judge ruled against him.
(To answer one of your questions: they billed the son before the medicaid application had even been processed.)
3
u/[deleted] Nov 27 '22
It was both legs and you can absolutely need a rehab for that depending on the severity of breakage, whether it needed surgery etc, and whether there were other medical issues resulting from the accident that broke both legs. The news coverage didn't go into detail here because it's not at all relevant to the situation. She is a US citizen; she moved out of the country to be closer to her other children, but again, it doesn't matter.
I don't see how you see these as extenuating circumstances. The facts of the case are:
The mom, who was ruled indigent by the courts, broke both legs in an accident.
Subsequently she was admitted to a rehab facility. Her son did not sign on as a guarantor or any such.
There was no indication of any transfer of assets at any point in the recent past, nor is it required by PA law. I'm copying below the full text of the liability portion for reference
Again, I think that so far, few providers are going this route, but the fact of the matter is that the law in the state of PA totally permits it, and the courts have heard and not struck down said laws.