Virginia Rarely Prosecutes Cases of Neglect, Abuse
Lack of Expertise, Victims' Disabilities Hamper Investigators
By David S. Fallis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page A13
By the time Melvin Hearld was rushed from Grandview Adult Care II to an Abingdon hospital, his heart was racing, his kidneys were failing, infection raged in his body and his right leg was cold and dead. Doctors didn't believe that the 85-year-old man would survive the double amputation he needed. An intake nurse labeled his case "suspected neglect/abuse."
When he died 24 hours later on May 5, 2002, a doctor termed it a "wrongful death." Doctors said Hearld's massive gangrene had spread from bedsores that would have taken weeks to develop, and state inspectors said caretakers should have sought medical treatment sooner.
The inspectors contacted the Washington County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched a deputy to investigate. He interviewed a nurse at the hospital and looked at photos of Hearld's wounds. He then closed his investigation and the brief effort at prosecution died.
State records show about 4,400 cases of abuse, neglect or exploitation in assisted living facilities since 1995, but those responsible are rarely prosecuted.
Just 43 times between 1994 and 2002 have people been prosecuted under a state law prohibiting abuse and neglect of the incapacitated or elderly, according to a review of computerized court records statewide. And those cases were not necessarily in assisted living facilities.
In a handful of other cases, adult home employees were prosecuted under other statutes, including sexual assault.
Unprosecuted neglect and abuse of the elderly and disabled is "a huge problem that is widespread," said Joseph Soos, a former Alexandria police detective who trains others how to investigate these cases. Soos said law enforcement officials are often reluctant because they lack the expertise and determination to investigate and prosecute this type of case. Also, the mental or physical disabilities of the victims can make them poor witnesses.
Some cases are missed altogether, he said, because social workers, not police or other trained officials, are expected to make critical decisions about what constitutes a crime and whether to contact police. State officials said new requirements that abuse, neglect and certain deaths be reported and reviewed should bring many more cases to light.
In Hearld's case, state inspectors concluded that staff members failed to detect the worst of his three bedsores and, when they did, "failed to obtain proper medical attention for the resident."
Washington County Detective J.S. Blevins said he decided that there was no criminal intent, so he closed the case. "I did that one interview . . . and I pretty much turned it back over to Social Services," he said.
Washington County Commonwealth's Attorney Jeffrey Coale, who left office in 2003, said neither the sheriff's office nor licensing inspectors contacted his office about Hearld's death.
Dexter Ramey, who operated the home at the time, declined to be interviewed, but in state records he denied that the home neglected Hearld. The facility remains open under new management and a new name.
At Brighton Gardens of Richmond, prosecutors had witnesses who saw Louise Elliott Jonas, 81, being abused March 3, 2002. A caretaker slapped Jonas on the arm and said "that [expletive] gave me a hard time today," co-workers told licensing inspectors. After dinner that day, the staff saw the same caretaker pin Jonas to the bed with her elbow and wrestle her into her pajamas.
About 2 a.m., Jonas was found collapsed in her room, suffering from a massive head injury. She died five days later of a subdural hematoma, an autopsy found.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
| Sunday: Thousands of residents at Virginia's assisted living facilities have suffered harm.|
As Care Declines, Cost Can Be Life
Owner's Homes Troubled, Yet Aid Continued
Graphic: Home Residents and Locations
Graphic: The Victims
Graphic: Troubled Homes
Monday: Violence has plagued assisted living facilites, which have become home to a volatile mix of residents.
In Va. Homes, Violent Preyed on the Vulnerable
Sites Woo Patients They Can't Protect
Graphic: Less Than Full Disclosure
Graphic: Admitting a Violent Offender
Tuesday: One woman in need ended up in a dysfunctional assisted living facility that was unable to provide the most basic care.
Facility's Chaos Bred Wide Neglect
Graphic: Kensington Gardens
Wednesday: As the assisted living industry has grown, it has outpaced Virginia's ability to oversee it. Inspectors are overwhelmed and the state lacks strong enforcement tools, especially compared with many states.
Laws Let Facilities Stay Open
Virginia Rarely Prosecutes Cases of Neglect, Abuse
Graphic: Repeat Violations
Graphic: Harm in Homes
How This Series Was Reported
Multimedia Video: Help at Other End of the Line
Video: Caregivers Speak Out
Video: A Combustible Mix
Video: Choosing an Assisted Living Home
Audio: 911 Call From Cary Avenue Adult Home
Live Discussion 11 a.m. Wednesday: Reporter David S. Fallis discusses this series
Transcript: Maurice Jones, Va. Department of Social Services Commissioner
Search For When facilities are found by the Virginia Department of Social Services to be in violation of state law, the department issues a notice outlining the violations. The agency also may impose fines, threaten not to renew a home's license or revoke it.
The conditions that prompted the actions listed in this database were found between January 1998 and February 2004. The Virginia Department of Social Services can be contacted at (804) 726-7154 for current or additional information.
_____Madison Documents_____ • Complaint Record and Investigation Report, Feb. 16, 1999
• Violation Notice, March 5, 1999
• Violation Notice, Aug. 6, 1999
• Inspection Summary, Jan. 9, 2001
• Inspection Summary, March 9, 2001
• Inspection Summary, June 26, 2001
• Follow-up Letter, Aug. 16, 2001
• Violation Notice Oct. 9, 2001
• Inspection Summary, Oct. 19, 2001
• Follow Up Letter, Oct. 22, 2001
• Violation Notice and Inspection Report, Feb. 1, 2002
• Violation Notice, Feb. 25, 2002
• Monitoring Visit Report, March 16, 2002
• Violation Notice April 4, 2002
• Inspection Summary, June 8, 2002
• Follow-up Letter, July 7, 2002
• Violation Notice and Inspection Summary, Aug. 7, 2002
• Violation Notice and Investigation Report, Sept. 3, 2002
• Investigation Report, Sept. 3, 2002
• Follow-up Letter, Sept. 4, 2002
• Corrective Actions, Sept. 16, 2002
• Violation Notice, Sept. 26, 2002
• Denial of Renewal Application, Nov. 27, 2002