By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO —A law firm in Long Beach has filed a class action suit against a company that operates 57 nursing homes in California, including five facilities in San Diego County. The lawsuit incorporated declarations from the state attorney general’s office in another case to contend that by understaffing nursing homes, Brius Management Co. has caused unspecified harm to residents of those facilities.
Responding, the Brius Management Co., owned by Los Angeles businessman and philanthropist Shlomo Rechnitz, said the allegations in the lawsuit are unfounded and part of a pattern of behavior in which the law firm, Garcia, Arigliere & Medby, seeks to persuade nursing home operators to engage it as a legal consultant.
Among the 57 nursing homes and properties named in an attachment to the complaint are these in San Diego County: Granite Hills Healthcare, El Cajon; Clairemont Healthcare & Wellness, Point Loma Rehabilitation Center and Brighton Place, all in San Diego; and Presidio Health Care Center, Spring Valley.
In the complaint, LaTonya Foreman, who holds power of attorney for her father Raymond Foreman, a former resident at the Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre-West in Inglewood, California, is listed as bringing the action.
Without specifying any specific harm that came to Raymond Foreman, the law firm references a case before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Catherine Bauer in Santa Ana in which the state attorney general’s office seeks to disqualify Rechnitz and his companies from purchasing or managing 19 additional nursing homes.
“Rechnitz and his companies (Brius Management Company and Brius LLC) have a history of failing to comply with laws and regulations enforced by DHCS (California’s Department of Health Care Services) and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,” the state attorney general’s office said in a motion in that case.
That motion, filed on August 28, 2014, by Deputy Attorney General Elisa Wolfe-Donato, argued for disqualification, among other grounds, “because Rechnitz tends to not comply with regulatory requirements; Rechnitz’s revenue is being markedly reduced and could compromise patient care; Rechnitz is unlikely to be approved as a Medi-Cal provider for Debtors’ facilities, and Rechnitz is unlikely to operate Debtors’ facilities.”
Rechnitz did not respond to the issues raised in the bankruptcy case, but spokesperson Mike Sitrick said:
“This lawsuit is filled with baseless and untrue allegations. It is notable that it makes no allegations of harm to or abuse of our patients. It is also telling, we believe, that its filing came after we refused to enter into a lucrative consulting contract with the plaintiff’s attorney, Steve Garcia, and that Mr. Garcia has been sued at least once for, among other things, ‘Attempted Civil Extortion.’
“The fact is, Brius facilities are operated at the highest standards and have been appointed as one of the only State Certified Temporary Managers to take control of troubled nursing facilities.
“This lawsuit is a case in point of how anyone can say anything in a lawsuit regardless of whether it’s true. We look forward to proving the allegations in this lawsuit to be utterly false.”
The case reference by spokesperson Sitrick was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Oct. 20, 2012 by Goldstar Healthcare Center of Santa Monica against Garcia, Artigliere and Schadrack. Garcia’s spokeswoman, Megan Braverman, said that case was dismissed by the Superior Court judge who heard it, and now Garcia’s motion to be awarded court costs and attorney fees is pending before the court.
The Goldstar complaint had alleged that:
for many, many years, Stephen Garcia began acquiring interest in the nursing home industry in California and the greater Los Angeles Area. His interests in the nursing home industry took two primary forms. He would obtain a percentage of ownership in the facility as an owner, or else he and/or GAS (law firm initials) would contract with the facility as a ‘consultant’ and be paid a consultant’s fee by the facility…. Defendants obtain their various interests in nursing homes in the following manners: they will sue a nursing home and obtain a recovery from the nursing home either through settlement or trial. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Artigliere will then approach the nursing home and offer to not sue it again if the nursing home enters into a lucrative ‘consulting agreement’ by which Mr. Garcia, Mr. Artigliere, and/or Mr. Schadrack—either individually or in their capacity as members of GAS-purport to ‘advise’ the nursing home on how to avoid further legal expenses….If the nursing home refuses to succumb to Mr. Garcia’s and/or Mr. Artigliere’s implied threat, GAS and/or Mr. Artiglierr will then use any and all available means to force that nursing home to take on burdensome costs by –among other things-abusing the legal process in order to force the nursing home to change its mind and agree to a ‘consulting agreement.’
Braverman, saying that the case was dismissed outright, commented: “This is a tactic, make false allegations against the attorney to try to make him fold.” Sitrick responded: “It was settled under a confidential settlement. Then it was dismissed.”
No doubt, there will be more disagreements between the opposing parties before these matters are settled.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
Pingback: Nursing Homes Brighton Colorado | Start - Nursing-Carreer.com
Pingback: Company Research | MCO 496
Mr. Garcia’s spokeswoman, Megan Braverman, is quoted in the story as saying that the case “was dismissed by the Superior Court judge who heard it and now Garcia’s motion to be awarded court costs and attorney fees is pending before the court.” As we stated in the story, the lawsuit was settled under a confidential settlement. Then it was dismissed.” We went to the link provided in Mr. Garcia’s post and looked for case #12C03336 (the case number for the aforementioned suit) and could not find a motion pending before the court for Mr. Garcia to be awarded costs, attorneys fees or anything else. We would encourage any interested readers to do the same.
Attorney Stephen M. Garcia writes to us, in part: “In response to your request and after reading your article I provide the following information and facts. The Complaint against me filed by Goldstar was dismissed by Goldstar with our motion to
dismiss, which carried with it the likelihood of an award of attorney’s fees and costs, pending to be heard by the Court. The Complaint was, and is, baseless, and was dismissed by the proponents of the baseless lawsuit without even a deposition being taken. We provided no payment at all to the Plaintiff as none was warranted. You may go to
https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx?CT=CI to confirm this reality. Specifically look at August 21, 2013 confirming dismissal by the Plaintiff with our motion to strike pending.
The allegations of Mr. Rechnitz and his corporate entities, are equally baseless and false. The assertion that we, and me specifically, sought to acquire a “lucrative” agreement with them is absolutely false. There is zero truth to that allegation. I would the provision of the “who, where and when” this all allegedly occurred because it never happened. I do know that Mr. Rechnitz and Mr. Goldner of Goldstar are friends living in the same community and I believe attending the same synagogue. Apparently this contrived story is the new offense against those who would have the audacity to seek to bring to justice long term care providers…”