November 14, 2025 • 49 mins
The moment a loved one lands in long‑term care, everything feels urgent and unclear. We’ve been there—rushed discharges, impossible forms, promises that don’t match reality—and we wanted a straight answer on what legal accountability looks like when neglect or abuse causes real harm. That’s why we sat down with elder abuse attorney Anthony Lanzone to map the path from pain to action without sugarcoating the struggle.
In Episode 113, we talk about why nursing home cases are so hard, what families can realistically expect, and how accountability actually happens. We share the steps to document harm, find the right lawyer, and protect your peace of mind while you pursue justice.
• systemic barriers that shield long-term care providers
• why elder neglect requires proof beyond simple negligence
• how damages caps shape which cases lawyers can take
• settlements versus trials and real risk trade-offs
• punitive damages and when they apply
• CMS liens and how they reduce awards
• practical steps to document abuse or neglect
• where to file complaints if you cannot sue
• why memorializing misconduct still matters
Contact Anthony Lanzone: Email: mycase@www.lanzonemorgan.com
Phone: 888-887-9777
#LoveConquersAlz, #ElderCare, #ElderLaw, #NursingHomeReform, #ElderAbuseAwareness, #SeniorAdvocacy, #LongTermCare, #JusticeForOurElders, #PeopleOverProfit, #HealthPodcast, #AdvocacyPodcast
No Country For Old People; a Nursing Home Exposé is STREAMING NOW on Amazon Prime (https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0F7D1RR5X/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r)
Please watch. Review. Share.
Be a ROAR-ior!! JOIN THE R.O.A.R. MOVEMENT for quality long term care! Visit the No Country For Old People Website for more information.
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT THE ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL PROMOTION OF OUR DOCUMENTARY "NO COUNTRY FOR OLD PEOPLE" BY MAKING A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION THROUGH THE NATIONAL CONSUMER VOICE HERE
Follow us on Twitter, FB, IG, & TiK Tok 💜
Listen on your favorite platform 💜
If you like what you hear leave us some love. 💜
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Don Priess (00:00):
When the world has got you down, Alzheimer's sucks.
It's an equal opportunitydisease that chips away at
everything we hold dear. And todate, there's no cure. So until
there is, we continue to fightwith the most powerful tool in
our arsenal, love. This is Loveconquers all's a real and really
(00:22):
positive podcast that takes adeep dive into everything,
Alzheimer's, The Good, The Badand everything in between. And
now here are your hosts, Susiesinger Carter and me. Don
Priess,
Susie Singer Carter (00:39):
hi everybody. I'm Susie singer
Carter,
Don Priess (00:42):
and I'm Don Priess, and this is Love conquers alls.
Hello Susan.
Unknown (00:47):
Hi Donald. Welcome everybody to another episode of
Love conquers alls. We're reallyhappy to have you here, and
excited to have you here today,because we have a great topic,
because that has to do with notjust Alzheimer's because, but it
sort of bleeds into ourdocumentary, No Country for Old
(01:08):
people, which is out now and andso many people, when it comes to
neglect and abuse, want to talkabout, well, you know, we have
no recourse. What do you do? Thelaw is set up so so again, it's
stacked against the victims andtheir families and and in and it
(01:30):
is. That's not gonna lie. It is.
And, you know, I don't talkabout it a lot, but I did file a
suit for my mom. I can't talkabout the details, but I can
tell you it is a and I did itfor the reason of of that,
everybody will tell you that'sin this industry, memorializing
and getting it on record.
(01:50):
Because if, if just that, if youdon't, you know, if you're like
me and you're not litigious, butjust to get it on record is so
important in, you know, and, andit was stressed to me from our
CO producer, Rick muncastle,who's the former federal
prosecutor, who said, Susie, youhave to do this. It's, it's
(02:11):
because I was like, I'm notlitigious. I don't want to do
this. And he said, but you haveto. It's the, it's the right
thing to do, is to get them onrecord, at least, at the very
least so and you know, which issomething I want to talk about
with our guest today, who'sactually an elder care attorney.
And I just think it's such animportant topic, so I'm excited
(02:34):
to have them, and I know howhard it was personally, just
even even procuring a anattorney who will take your care
your case, because it is, likeDon said, it's stacked up
against us, and for all thereasons that we talk about in
the documentary and that we'vetalked about on the show, it is,
(02:55):
you know, it is, it is heavilyweighted for the industry and
the protection of the industry,and not on the most vulnerable
and our loved ones and theelderly. So which is what we're
trying to do, educate everybodywith No Country for Old people,
get them and so you don't getyou know, I know I say this all
(03:18):
the time, but don't get SuckerPunched like I did because it's
awful to be in crisis and try tomake smart decisions, and I made
a lot of mistakes, so trying tohelp mitigate those mistakes
with you out there, if youhaven't gone through this yet,
or if you're going through itnow, yeah, it's it all this
information is even it's notit's not pretty, and it's not
(03:43):
what we wanted. It's not it'snot a sitcom, and it's not any
of that stuff. But, you know,it's stuff we need to look at so
that when you're in thatsituation, it's not devastating.
It shouldn't be devastating.
It's it's part of life. It's thecircle. It's gonna
Don Priess (04:03):
be hard, but, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's gonna be hard
no matter what, but it's, it is,as Susie said, it's shockingly
devastating when a you'd have noidea what's going on, when
you're just walking through thisforest of you know, where am I,
and things are jumping out atyou, and you have no idea how to
react to them, on top of justthe emotion of what's just what
(04:25):
is happening to your loved one,it's, it's a perfect storm of
hell. Mitigate, if you canmitigate some of that, it'll
make it a lot better. Andthat's, you know, that's the
goal.
Susie Singer Carter (04:40):
Yeah, yeah.
Because I do think that this isa hot topic, and so I'm really
glad that we got to have thisguest normally, we kibbits and
make things really fun andlight. But I'm fired up today,
Don
Don Priess (04:55):
I'm gonna even say, damn it. See, that's how fired
up I am. I just said,
Unknown (05:00):
damn it. God, God, I know. I'm gonna say son of a
bitch. There, I did it. Oh, myGod. I know, son of a bitch. No.
I mean, honestly, I'm very firedup about this topic. And I you
know, we've had, we've beenlucky, because we've got to work
with very closely for the pastthree years. Our co producer,
Rick montcastle, who's formerfederal prosecutor, who
(05:23):
prosecuted nursing homes for twodecades, never saw any change,
retired three years ago, and Imet him and said, Let's do a
documentary on this, becausethings need to change. And boy,
they really do. And but in thatbut until everything changes, we
need to take our power, whateverit is, and, you know, whatever
(05:45):
we can do to hold everybodyaccountable, that's what we
should do. That's the rightthing to do. It is and because I
was like, I'm done. I don't wantto do this. I I'm I mean, I
wanted to do the documentary,but as I knew the terror, I
knew, I knew the terrain, butlegal, I'm not a litigious
person, and I didn't want toventure into that. It just
(06:06):
seemed very daunting, and it canbe, but honestly, it wasn't as
daunting as I thought it wasgoing to be, because it feels
like the people that are the thethe attorneys
and their firms that are in thisparticular specialty of law have
(06:29):
so much empathy. They have to,because of the way it's set up,
and because they do iteverything on spec and pro bono,
they have to take cases that arevery strong, but they are. They
wouldn't go into this field ifthey didn't have empathy,
because it is not fun,
Don Priess (06:46):
and it's a roll of the dice for them, complete roll
of the ice. It's, it's not like,you know, it's not like a slip
and fall and, oh, okay, we know.
We can go in there and say this,and we get this. It's not, it's
so complicated. It's
Susie Singer Carter (06:59):
very complicated, yeah, and that's
why we have our guest today. DonYeah, do you want to do it? Do a
fantastic, wonderfulintroduction, like you always
Don Priess (07:09):
Donald, why not? Why wouldn't I want to do that? So
do.
I'll do that right now. Anthonyland zone is the founding
partner of land zone, MorganLLP, a firm built on courage,
compassion and justice. Earninghis Juris Doctor from Western
State College of Law, Anthonywent on to complete advanced
training in dispute resolutionat Pepperdine University's
(07:31):
renowned Strauss Institute. He'san active member of the Consumer
Attorneys of California and theAmerican Association for
Justice, driven by a lifelongpassion to stand up for
injustice. Anthony has dedicatedhis career to advocating for the
rights and dignity of vulnerableindividuals in nursing home and
elder abuse cases and holdingpowerful institutions
(07:54):
accountable. We are honored thathe is joining us today. So let's
say hello to Anthony lenzone,hello.
Anthony Lanzone (08:01):
How are you today?
Susie Singer Carter (08:02):
We're good, Anthony, you are one of those
amazing people that that isrepresenting vulnerable people,
elderly people and vulnerablenot just elderly who have bad
experiences, egregiousexperiences in long term care,
which is what our documentary,No Country for Old people, is
(08:23):
about, because I've been throughit. I've also been through the
legal journey in this arena, andit isn't easy. And so we're
really excited to talk to youabout this. So I just want to
know a little bit about yourbackground. Tell the audience
what your background is and howyou came to this, this this
focus on the elderly and thevulnerable in long term care.
Anthony Lanzone (08:45):
Yeah, so I went to law school because I knew I
wanted to represent victims. Iknew I wanted to represent
vulnerable people that havedifficulty finding
representation. And and when Iwent to law school, I was
fortunate to work during the dayand go to school at night, and I
(09:06):
worked at a firm that did a lotof different plaintiffs work,
representing victims of alldifferent types of cases. And
somehow I discovered elderabuse, neglect. At the time, it
wasn't something that a wholelot of people were aware of,
that there's this whole body oflaw in California that tries to
(09:30):
protect elderly folks. And I wasback in 2021, or, sorry, 2001
when I discovered all thatstuff, and I was fortunate
enough to get my hands on acouple cases, and just kind of
really enjoyed the area of law,because I felt like I was
(09:53):
representing the most vulnerablepeople in California at the
time, and I've been doing itsince 2000 And one and we
continue to do it today. And youknow, my law firm has been
fortunate enough to be part ofsome really seminal cases in
California that I think havereally made a positive impact
for elderly folks.
Susie Singer Carter (10:14):
Thank you.
Thank you for doing that. I meanit. These kinds of cases are,
are are classically, classicallyknown to be so challenging,
right? I mean, they are they.
There's so many barriers it putin, put in front of the consumer
(10:35):
and the family members for toprotect their loved ones and and
what makes it so challenging?
Like, why is it so hell Why isit so hella challenging? Why is
it so hard to take these peopleto task when they do something
so horribly?
Anthony Lanzone (10:54):
That's a good question. Part of it is just the
law itself. For example, if youget in a car accident, somebody
made a mistake. They weren'tintentionally trying to do
something. You get an fenderbender, and it's not the law is
written in a way where you'renot going to punish people for
(11:16):
mistakes that they make.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody's human in elder abuseneglect cases, you're actually
alleging that you didn't justmake a mistake. You were
consciously disregarding anexpected outcome, where, if you
don't take care of an elderlyperson, make sure they get food,
(11:37):
make sure they get water, makesure they get turned
repositioned, just the basiccustodial care needs that we all
take for granted because we'recapable of doing those things
ourselves. That's what makes itdifficult, because the law has a
higher burden of proof, and youhave a lot more hurdles to
(11:57):
overcome. In addition to that,when you accuse somebody of
those types of things, you canimagine they're going to fight
like hell. And so when you Sue,I mean, we primarily do, I call
institutional neglect cases, alot of long term care type of
facilities. And so they're wellfinanced, and they're going to
(12:20):
find the best lawyers they can,and they're going to fight like
hell, and that's what makesthese types of cases really,
really difficult.
Don Priess (12:29):
And don't the laws, especially here in California,
really, you know, make it moredifficult, not for a consumer,
to even find a lawyer to take acase, because they have the
limits. They have such lowlimits that a lawyer who's going
to be working on a, you know,30% or 40% or whatever, yeah,
what are they going to be doing?
They'll look at a case and go,Well, you know, I have all these
burdens of proof, and it's, Idon't know if it's gonna be
(12:53):
worth it to for my firm to eventake this case, because the
limits are so low. And I knowthat varies from state to state.
But has that been Is that achallenge, not only for you as a
lawyer, but for the consumer, tofind a lawyer who will take a
case?
Anthony Lanzone (13:08):
It's a huge challenge, but for people like
me, most of our clients, if notall of them, would not have
access to the courts. So all ofthe so we're we have to take
these cases on a contingencybasis, otherwise the plaintiff
won't be able to do them. Andyou're right. Don a lot of
(13:30):
lawyers aren't willing to dothat. These cases are really
expensive to litigate, and I'mnot talking about attorney's
fees. I'm talking aboutdepositions, filing fees,
discovery is just crazy.
Susie Singer Carter (13:45):
Expert witness, expert witnesses at all
that, all that stuff.
Anthony Lanzone (13:49):
It's not uncommon to spend 200 $300,000
on a case, and you got to win,otherwise you don't even get
that back, let alone get paidfor your time, let alone the
clients. And so you're right tofind a lawyer to do these types
of cases is really, reallydifficult for the consumer. And
(14:10):
more importantly is, over theyears, elder abuse has become a
very I guess it's a lot morepopular because a lot of people
have a lot more awareness.
There's a lot more advertisingthese days. Plaintiffs lawyers
are going crazy with theadvertising. And so a lot of
lawyers say, Hey, I'm going toget into elder abuse. It looks
like a great way to make aliving, not realizing, oh my
(14:32):
God, what did I get myself into?
This is way over the top. And soconsumer, because not only do
you have to find a lawyer, youhave to find one that that that
knows the lay of the land, thatcan actually hold the wrongdoers
accountable. So it's reallytricky for the consumer these
(14:54):
days, and then you've got allthese layers that the nursing
homes put in front of theconsumer. Are arbitration
agreements, you know, contractsthat are 100 pages long, where
they don't even realize thatthere's there, that they're
giving up rights. You know,another point that I'd like to
(15:15):
make is, is, a lot of the casesthat I deal with, they all stem
from the fact that the firsttime anybody has a run in with a
nursing home, some tragic eventhappened, right? Susie knows
what I'm talking about. Sheexperienced it with her mom, but
no one's thinking about, Oh mygosh, Mom's going to get
Alzheimer's. Mom's going to haveto go to a nursing home. And all
(15:40):
these life traumatic life eventsare happening and unfolding and
and you're in acute carehospital, and some nurse comes
up to you and says, We'redischarging your mom in 12
hours. You need to find anursing home for him. So all
these traumatic things are goingon as you're making these
enormous decisions andentrusting somebody you don't
(16:03):
know with your with your lovedone, and so that puts the
consumer at a disadvantage.
Again.
Susie Singer Carter (16:11):
It's an unbalanced advantage that they
have over us, because we're in acrisis, and that's the worst
time to make decisions. And weare. We are desperate for
answers, and they aren't there.
And the ones that are there aregenerally, if you're in a bad
place, it's gonna it's bad allaround, like it's spoiled all
(16:31):
around. So the informationyou're getting is not correct,
even though you know in your gutthat it is right, like you're
saying something is not righthere. This is not the way that
you treat human beings. Thiscan't be right. But they're
saying, No, this is the way itis. This is the way it is. And,
you know, this is just the wayit is, and you have to
Don Priess (16:53):
accept them. If you don't like it, you
Anthony Lanzone (16:55):
can take them elsewhere. And a lot of it's
driven to, I mean, that's agreat point. The way it is,
right, you go to an acute carehospital, they say you need to
go to a nursing home. You needrehab. Well, nursing home is not
rehab. A nursing home is 23hours of convalescing, and if
(17:16):
you're lucky, maybe an hour ofrehab. So,
Susie Singer Carter (17:21):
you know, yeah, if you're lucky, yeah?
Anthony Lanzone (17:24):
Like the health insurance is set up to pay the
benefit of the rehab. It's allpart of a system, you know,
healthcare system that's reallybroken. Yeah, I think we all
know that, but the consumerdoesn't. They're they're not
aware of these things before itall like it's always, here's the
traumatic event. You're in thesystem, and that's and that's
(17:45):
the end of it. And so thatreally subjects these folks to
all the problems that you seeand that you guys talk about,
that you bring to the open forthe public. It's a great
service. You guys are,
Unknown (17:56):
well, thank you. I mean, I would like to maybe jump
to because we do talk about thesystemic crisis. We talk about
it ad nauseum. It's in ourdocumentary. We know, I think my
audience knows why, how we gethere, but how, and you know, I
can talk about my experiencewith an attorney and the reason
why I did it, just so you know,Anthony, is that my our other co
(18:20):
producer is a former federalprosecutor, Rick montcastle, who
prosecuted nursing homes for,you know, federally for over two
decades and never saw anychange. And he also, you know,
he had very famous cases againstpharmaceutical which is not much
different. And you know, we alsohave, as you know, a very
(18:42):
powerful nursing home lobby thatmakes it difficult and has
created a very huge barrier forfor the for us, for for the
public. Because, in a way, we'renot the we're really not the
consumer the government is whenyou're on Medicare and Medicaid,
so they're answering to them andnot to us, and that's why they
(19:04):
can say, we'll just find anotherplace if you're not happy,
because they'll find someoneelse and they'll get paid. But
so when what? How does somebodyin California? And hope you
know, and some of this willapply, obviously, across the
country, it is state by state,but we're very close with
canner, which is the CaliforniaAttorneys for long you know,
(19:28):
great. Yeah, they're amazing.
They're the ones that found me,the lawyer that I had, and the
reason why I did, oh, let me Iwas digress, the reason why I
got, why I did it, why I filed acase, which I can't talk about
because we had ended upsettling, but we Rick said, if
you don't file a case, then itgoes then it goes unknown, it
(19:49):
you need to get it memorialized,at least do that. And I wasn't
doing it for money or anything.
I was doing it for. To do whatRick said, I've never filed a
lawsuit ever. So I did, and likeDon said, I was turned down by
four lawyers here in LosAngeles, and the fourth one
(20:11):
said, I'll give you a gift. I'mgoing to tell you why we can't.
Most of these people won't do itis because the place that your
mom was at is beloved. No one'sgonna touch it and that. And
somehow I found canner, andcanner, I let them know, I sent
him my case, like wrote it up,and they said, Well, we'll find
you somebody. We've got yousomebody. I said, how everyone's
(20:32):
turned me down? They said, Who?
And I gave them the names. Andthey said, Well, they're not on
our list. They can't be thatgood. Yeah. But what is the,
what is the process like? What?
What would you recommend tosomeone who says, I know that my
my father was, was, you know,died prematurely, based, you
(20:54):
know, as a result of bad care atthis said facility, what do you
recommend? And a lot of peopleare so burnt out they don't even
want to deal with it. They'rejust like, Oh, it's over. Let me
get away from this awful world.
What do you recommend?
Anthony Lanzone (21:12):
Well, what somebody, when I stumble across
somebody that you just that youjust described. I i always tell
them that if you don't dosomething, you're going to be
thinking about the rest of yourlife. I should have done this. I
should have done that. Itdoesn't hurt to look into it.
Does it? Does your case rise tothe level of something that's
(21:34):
actionable? You don't know untilyou look into it. And so I
always tell people when theywhen I talk to them about
exactly what you're saying isjust give me the burden to look
into it and don't worry aboutit. Let us analyze the case.
Let's figure it out. And ifthere's, you know, a way to hold
(21:55):
people to account through thelaw, then we can do that. And so
that's what I tell everybody.
And you're right, Susie, thatyou know, when you talk about
elder abuse and health care andAlzheimer's, all this stuff in
the big like, I'm at the end ofthe spectrum of that. I don't
have any expertise on what thebest things are for people to
(22:18):
mention the elderly, I'm at thevery, very end of that. So by by
the time people get to me, theonly thing I can do is file a
lawsuit. But here's the thing,if you don't do that, if you
have a viable case, and youdon't do that, then you're not
holding people to account. Andby not holding people to
(22:40):
account, you're encouraging theconduct to continue. And so
perfect, you know, is it goingto change what happened? No.
Does one case change the world?
No, but cumulatively, it has to.
And I've seen changes in theindustry over 20 plus years. And
you know, just making them moreaware, I think, has been a
(23:03):
positive thing. And people havea lot of good outcomes in in
long term care, a lot of peopledo. The problem is when you have
people who are really sick thatneed more than rehab, and they
continue to decline, I justdon't think a lot of the
facilities are set up theiralgorithm. They're like their
algorithm in terms of caring forfolks. It just doesn't work for
(23:25):
people like that and like Ithink that's where the major
change needs to be, and I don'tknow how that is, because I'm
not a practitioner in terms ofmedicine and things like that. I
don't operate the nursing homes,but I can tell you when there's
a problem, when something shouldhave happened that didn't happen
Susie Singer Carter (23:47):
exactly, and I think that once they get
to you, and yet you're right.
You are the last stop. You arethe buck stops with you, because
you are. You get all the awful,hellish things that you know
you're like you, you get to seethe results of bad conduct, of
the egregious behavior,egregious businesses that are
(24:09):
not doing what they promised todo. So that's what you get.
That's what your expertise is,and, and, and it's, it's an
expertise like you said, that weneed, because we need to hold
them accountable. Because if allof us, even if we're burnt out
and just done and we are so sadand so grieve, you know,
Grievous we we want to it'ssomething, it's I why I did my
(24:32):
documentary. I felt if I didn'tshare what I knew, then I'm
culpable. I'm allowing it to gounder the radar again and again
and again. So that's why I didthe documentary, because I
thought I have to share whatI've learned. And so if people
go to someone like you, andyou're firm and maybe you can't
(24:53):
do a trial, maybe there's notenough to do it. But. At least
you can file a complaint. Atleast you Is that correct? Yeah.
Anthony Lanzone (25:05):
I mean, my goal at the end of the day is to give
people peace of mind, yes. Solet me look at the case. Is
there? Should we make acomplaint to the Department of
Public Health? Should we make acomplaint to the medical board?
Should we file a civil lawsuit,there's not enough evidence to
file a lawsuit. There's notenough evidence to file the
(25:25):
complaint, at least the persongets peace of mind is really, I
love that, like at the end ofthe day, that's the service that
we provide as lawyers ingeneral. You know, you want to
give your clients at least thatyou know, and if there's
something to be done about itand hold people account, then we
have the ability to do that.
Susie Singer Carter (25:44):
I have a personal question for you. You
know, having been an activeadvocate for this in since I've
started in three years ago, andI I received so many emails and
letters and people telling metheir stories, and they're so
heartbreaking, all of them,right? And, and they, they
(26:08):
resonate deeply. And, and youseem just like such an
empathetic human being.
Obviously, you know, this is notthe kind of law that you go into
to become, you know, abazillionaire, I don't think, I
mean, I'm sure you do very well,but I'm just saying it's, this
is a difficult this. This isvery difficult what you do. And
you're also dealing with peopleevery single time that have a
(26:31):
bad, such a horrible, badending. And how does that affect
you? Because for me, it's a lot,and I encourage you, like, I
want to hear people's stories.
But for you, how does it? How doyou handle that?
Anthony Lanzone (26:47):
Well, there's enough pain and grief going
around the case as it is, like,I don't need to be, you know,
get involved in that. That's notwhy they're there. They're
actually hiring us to try tohelp with the pain and grief.
And so I always tell my clientslike, you know, number one, it's
(27:09):
not lost on me how odd This isthat you're entrusting this
personal matter with a strangerthat you don't know. And number
two, whatever that burden thatyou're carrying. You know, the
guilt, the uncertainty, theworry. Just take that off your
(27:30):
back and just put it on ourshoulders and let us deal with
it, and let us counsel you andsee what we can do to try to
rectify the wrong. And thatseems to give people a good
sense of relief. And you know,it's not lost to me how horrible
these situations are. And Ithink you're right. Suzy like,
(27:53):
You got to kind of have like,even when we hire people like,
we don't just hire anybody likeyou really have to have that
empathy for people, because ifyou don't, you're not going to
be very successful in this typeof case. It's just too there's
too much emotion and grief. AndI think that that really helps
(28:15):
us, and my whole team really, weall have it, and I think that
makes a big difference for thecases and the client. I mean,
some of the great like, it'srare for a lawyer to get a thank
you from a client, and some ofthe thank you cards we've
gotten, it's just people come uphigh. It's been very rewarding
(28:39):
for
Susie Singer Carter (28:39):
sure. Yeah, I can imagine. I can imagine. So
if you I mean, obviously we'renot going to get into the weeds
of how a case could moveforward, but is it safe to say
that so many of these casessettle before you get into
court? Because I know a lot ofpeople say it's not about the
(29:00):
money like me. I want I justwant justice to be done. I want
it to be exposed. I want peopleto know what happened. I want to
have my day in court. But it'shard to get your day in court
because most of theseorganizations, these facilities,
these institutions, are backed,like you said, by a lot of
(29:20):
finance. They have insurancecompanies, and they do whatever
they can to stay out of court.
Is that correct?
Anthony Lanzone (29:29):
Yes and no, okay, I will say yes. The vast
majority of cases settle, andthe primary reason why they do
is, generally speaking, in everycase, there's always facts that
support your position. There'salways facts that don't support
your position. There's a lot offactors that go into it, the
(29:49):
jurisdiction that you're in, thejudge that you have, there's so
much risk and trial anduncertainty in trial for both
sides that you know it's. It'srisky, and so that's why a lot
of cases settle. And I do thinkthe judicial system is set up
for that, because most peoplethink that a trial is the end of
(30:10):
the case. The trial is like themiddle of a case. The trial will
go on and on, and this disputeis going to go on and on and on
until the parties take mattersinto their own hands and resolve
a case. I tried a case back inhow long was 22,010 or 12 years
ago, and we got a verdict onpart of the case, and then the
(30:36):
rest of the case was dismissed,and we had to go through two
separate appellate courts, theSupreme Court of California, and
12 years later, they were goingto let us try the second part of
the case, and then finallyresolved after 12 years. And
when you have a family goingthrough grief and all this, I
(30:56):
mean, you want to drag that outfor 12 years, you know, you
know, you probably don't want todo that, but we do try cases. A
lot of cases do get tried. Wegot a verdict a couple months
ago, a verdict last year.
There's probably two or threecases that get tried in our law
firm a year. And you know, it'srisky business for victims.
Susie Singer Carter (31:20):
And can you talk? So go
Don Priess (31:21):
on. Oh, no, I was gonna just say because, and it's
touching about something I saidbefore, is that the in,
especially in California, thelimits, the fact that, you know,
the that they basically, there'sso little penalty relative to
winning a case, to that becausetheir their insurance is just
going to pay for it. It's it'stheir cost of business. It's in
(31:43):
their line items, in theirbudgets. It's not that big a
deal for them, because thelimits are so low. How can
somebody do a slip and fall andget $10 million if somebody who
dies of wrongful death or abuse?
You know, it's capped, I thinkin California, like a million or
seven? No, it's 500,000 right?
Yeah, it's so low. And I assumethat that's because the nursing
(32:05):
home lobby is so powerful thatit keeps those limits low. How
does that make any sense? Andare we ever going to see that
change? Because to me, it makesno sense. Well, there
Anthony Lanzone (32:18):
are caps on certain types of cases when it
when it relates to elder abuseand neglect, it all stems around
a health care provider. So ifyou sue a health care provider
for negligence, they're entitledto those cap protections. In
California, several years ago,there was a agreement made that
(32:41):
got passed in the legislature,where those caps are increasing
incrementally over a 10 yearperiod. So that's been positive
for the consumer, and that alsogives more attorneys the
opportunity to make it morepalatable to take on these types
of cases. So that's beenpositive, but it's not as easy
(33:03):
as odd. The insurance is goingto pay for it. It's not going to
make a difference. A lot ofthese large corporations are
self insured now, and theyoperate on credit lines. And,
you know, there's been verdicts,and these verdicts really,
really have an impact on theirbusiness. And so, yes, a lot of
(33:25):
the cases get settled, but Ithink a lot of the trial work
that gets done, those areimportant, because it sets the
tone for the entire industry,and it also pushes people to to
settle, especially thedefendants. They don't want to
be victimized by a $10 millionyou know, even if there's caps,
they could be exposed topunitives, and they're exposed
(33:46):
to attorney's fees and costs,potentially. And so we're still
talking millions and millions ofdollars of exposure per case.
And so again, they settlebecause of, you know, there's
facts that are good for for oneside, and there's facts
uncertainty of the juries. Youjust don't know. For example, I
(34:09):
always you know if you had, if,if your case was, I represent
the plaintiff, and I want toconvince the jury that baseball
is the best sport in the world.
If I had 12 people on the jurythat played baseball, I'd
probably do pretty well on thatcase. But if I had 12 people
that never been to a baseballgame, I probably wouldn't do
(34:29):
very well in that case. That's astripped down version of how
risky jury trials are.
Susie Singer Carter (34:39):
Can you tell the difference? Because
this was something that youknow, Don just brought it up
about the difference betweenpunitive damages and and then
the cap of just, what does thecap relate to in terms of why?
What does that cap relate to interms of the the, is it
Don Priess (34:57):
wrong for death? Is it just neglecting a. Yeah, what
Unknown (35:00):
is and then, what are punitive damages? So we know the
difference, and then, and howare they assessed? And I know
that one of the issues is thatthe value of someone's life is
based on how much income and howvaluable they are to society. So
when you have someone that doesdoesn't have an income, so you
can't, there's no income to losewhen you're on Medicaid, right?
(35:22):
And so that is, that is factoredinto it, correct? Yeah.
Anthony Lanzone (35:27):
So if, if somebody passes away, and if
they make $30,000 a year andthey're 30 years old, that loss
income, that lost future incomeis something that's recoverable
as damages because they died.
Obviously, the vast majority ofour cases, they're retired, they
don't work, and they passedaway. So there's really not that
(35:51):
lost wage element that you'retalking about. Again, the caps
are only applicable to cases ofnegligence against health care
providers. Skilled nursingfacilities are health care
providers. So you have thatelement where, if you just prove
(36:14):
negligence, the caps apply ifyou prove elder abuse neglect,
certain claims aren't capped,and other cap and other claims
are so it's kind of complex toget
Susie Singer Carter (36:28):
in. It is complex. I know you have a hard
out in six minutes, and Iwanted, I just wanted you to
talk about, can you Okay, okay,good. Because, because there's
something else that I justlearned by going through this
case that that is a be in mybonnet, because it is the thing.
It is the it's about the CMS. Soif you settle your case, or you
(36:51):
go, or you go to trial, whateverCMS, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid come in and go, Oh,thank you for going to court and
just and revealing all thisfraud. Now we get to have our
percentage and and to me, that'slike we are, that we are the
wolf in sheep's clothing. Wedid. We didn't overdo any
oversight. We didn't enforce ourregulations that are there and
(37:15):
yet. Thank you. We wouldn't havelooked at it at all, but you
brought it to light. Give ussome money, and they take money,
and it
Don Priess (37:21):
comes out of your pocket, not out of the facility
that caused all of this. Itdoesn't come out of them in
addition to the settlement, itcomes out of your settlement.
Susie Singer Carter (37:31):
And with all due respect, Anthony,
doesn't come out of the cut ofthe lawyer either. It comes out
of the plaintiff's cut.
Anthony Lanzone (37:39):
Correct, correct. So don't let me forget
to address your question aboutthe punitive damages, because I
didn't
Susie Singer Carter (37:47):
okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Anthony Lanzone (37:53):
However strongly you feel about this,
Susie, I think feel about thesame about this. It's okay. So
generally speaking, in an elderabuse and about case, Medicare,
by statute, has an automaticlien. They're saying, Okay,
well, somebody has a bed sore.
They weren't supposed to getthat and we had to expend a
(38:15):
bunch of money to help, youknow, cure that ailment, that
that we wouldn't have had tospend that money but for the
negligence or neglect of thedefendant. So we have somebody
designated it in our office thatwe have to pay a salary,
employment, taxes, benefits andeverything to make sure that the
federal government gets theirmoney back. And they are
(38:38):
painfully difficult to dealwith, and the system that's in
place to make sure they get paidis a disaster. They'll tell you,
you know, hey, we spent $700,000on this, and then six months
later they'll say, Well, we madea mistake. It was really
$100,000 and so whatever youhave to repay Medicare or CMS,
(39:01):
that's part of the damagecalculation. So if we were to go
to trial on a case, we wouldhave a witness come in and say,
I got this letter from Medicare,and they're claiming that we owe
them $250,000 or whatever it is,and then the jury would be able
to determine that as a damage sothat it hopefully wouldn't come
(39:24):
out of their, their their, youknow, the compensation that
they're for their injury. Andthat would be something that
would be separate. But whenwe're talking about settling the
cases, which the majority of theones we do, that is calculated
as part, as as, as part of thedeal, so that the plaintiff
knows, you know, they're goingto have to pay this too, in
(39:46):
addition to whatevercompensation for for the
plaintiff is going to be but itis an imperfect system. It's
unfair, in my opinion, becausewhen Medicare was. Created and
legislated and operated. It wasnever contemplated that that
would have to be something thatwould have to be paid back, but
(40:07):
that's the way it is now. And II wish it was helping Medicare
and CMS with their finances, butit doesn't seem to be doing very
much. So it seems pretty unfairto me too negotiable.
Don Priess (40:24):
It's yeah, and it's negotiable. So it's like, Wait,
it either is a cost or it isn'tthe cost what they negotiate. So
like random,
Susie Singer Carter (40:32):
it just seems nefarious at best. And the
fact that you know that they cancome in and yeah, like you said,
and then negotiate on it. Itjust kind of like taints the
whole concept of it and why theyshould be paying a lot, if
anything, it should be theopposite, like we should get the
plaintiff should get asettlement from from the from
(40:54):
the the perpetrator, I'm not alawyer, and then also from CMS
for not doing their job. But no,we're rewarding them for not
doing their job.
Anthony Lanzone (41:06):
Yeah, it's that gut feeling that you're talking
about. I have it right nowbecause we're talking about it
just makes me say to my stomach,at least. I mean, if, if a, if
a, if a victim of elder abuseand neglect, wants to hold
someone to account, they have todo all the legwork and go to
(41:27):
court and find a lawyer and takeall the risk and do all this
stuff. I don't see why Medicarecan't have their lawyer go into
court when there's an elderabuse case, if they want to
stake a claim to a lien andlitigate their own case and
present. Thank you. Thank
Don Priess (41:43):
you. Because there's so there's so many that they're
not enough lawyers to be hiredby CMS. There'd be so many
cases. It would be, you know,they'd need an army of a million
lawyers.
Susie Singer Carter (41:55):
There's the same lawyers now, I think they
would just have to go they, youknow, they should be punished
for it, and then, you know, andif they have to go, let them
find a lawyer, just like anybodyelse does, a claimant does, it's
on them. It's incumbent on themto take care of their own
business, not on somebody'sfamily who's already gone
through tragedy and now has to,like, it's like pouring salt in
(42:18):
the wound, if you ask me, Idon't disagree, right? Anthony,
okay, so before you have to go,I want you to describe, to
explain what punitive damages,and then we have to have you
back on again for part two,because there's just too much to
talk about.
Anthony Lanzone (42:32):
I'd love to do that. Okay, so punitive damages,
those are damages that come atthe very end of the trial, and
if you prove in your case inchief that the acts of the
defendants were fraudulent,malicious or oppressive, the
jury can can decide if they sayyes, that those that conduct was
(42:59):
then you have the opportunity Toput your proven damage case on
and all Peter damages are,they're very simple. How much
money is it going to cost topunish this particular defendant
for the conduct? And again, thehope is to put such a damage on
them that will really motivatethem to change their conduct.
(43:19):
And so all the punitive damagesare are based on is essentially,
you get to put your case on,this is their net worth. This is
all their income. These are alltheir assets. You know, this is
all their debt. And then thejury can decide, you know,
(43:40):
somebody has a million dollars,is it a cost $1,000 to punish
this person? If somebody has abillion dollars, you know, isn't
it cost a million dollars? Amillion Yeah, and the jury gets
to, gets to determine that,
Susie Singer Carter (43:54):
Anthony, how is there not any? How is it
not? Why is there just,naturally, just punitive
damages, because it how is itnot like, you know, done it
with, with, without, notmilitia,
Don Priess (44:09):
if there's a case, if there's a case, if there's
neglect and abuse, how is thatnot automatically punitive?
Yeah, I don't get it.
Anthony Lanzone (44:16):
Well, the law is written in a way to be
balanced and for it to be fair.
And so just because we accusesomebody of abuse and neglect,
they have the opportunity todefend themselves. And so I
agree with you, if you go totrial and you prove elder abuse
neglect, most of the time,you're going to go to go to the
(44:39):
punitive damage phase, and thejury is going to get to decide
how much to punish those folks.
But as we said, most of thecases resolve, and so you factor
in based on, you know, trialsthat have happened, based on
other cases, and you evaluatethose risks and benefits. I tell
you, I. Again, to exemplify theriskiness of jury trials and
(45:04):
punitive damage and all thatstuff. You know, when I was a
young lawyer getting a lot ofopportunities to try cases, you
know, I won my first case, bigpunitive damage verdict. Won my
second case, punitive damageverdict, and I got an ego about
it, and it's very easy to fallinto that trap, just the feeling
(45:29):
of being able to convincesomebody of malice, oppression,
fraud and they potentially hurtthis person and all that stuff,
and plus the rewards you getfrom representing the vulnerable
person. Then I had a few casesthat I went to trial on and I
lost, and I reflected back onthat thinking, you know, I
(45:49):
wasn't thinking straight. I wasriding the ego train. I felt
like I could do anything. Iconvinced anybody of anything,
and I was a little irrationalabout examining and weighing the
evidence and the risks and thebenefits, and I felt bad. I
think I drove some of thoseclients to trial when the
probably their best interest wasnot to relive that and probably
to resolve the case. And so it'sjust Risky Business all the way
(46:14):
around. It's, it's the bestsystem I know of, and I'm happy
with it, and I think it, youknow, I wish we did more on the
front end of elder care and allthis stuff so we didn't have so
much to do, and we didn't haveto be talking about jury trials
and all that stuff. I don't knowwhat the solutions are over
there, but I know that there'ssome solutions to be had. And
(46:36):
so, you know, I don't know thisis where we're at, and
Unknown (46:41):
all this is where we're at. I know, and you're right
about these, these, you know,when you go to trial, they can
last so long. And we intervieweda registered nurse that we
shielded in our documentary,because she was a whistleblower
who went through a 12 year trialthat was so harrowing and so
(47:02):
awful that by the time it got tothe end, and by the way, there
was like a $300 million judgmentagainst this, you know,
franchise, and they justbasically made a deal with the
judge and got it down to, like acouple million and then, and
then filed for bankruptcy and anopened and with another, under
(47:23):
another corporate, you know,entity. So those things happen.
And she was,
Anthony Lanzone (47:28):
Love to talk about that...that's a whole
other session
Susie Singer Carter (47:32):
for sure, for sure. So there is that stuff
that, wow, this it, yeah, right.
We need a whole nother sessionwith you. So, you know, we'll
have to, we have to. Thank youso much. I know you have to go.
And we had a little bit of alate technical start. So come
everybody who's listening, comeback. We're going to have a part
two, and maybe we'll get somequestions. If you have
(47:54):
questions, send them to us, youknow, you know, we you have all
our stuff in the show notes, andwe'll also have all of Anthony
his firm and ways to contacthim. And I think you gave such
great advice, like, let youdecide. Like, give your case,
don't don't feel defeated. Atleast give your case a chance,
so that you know that you'vedone all that you can. Because
(48:16):
this is an emotional part oflaw. It's very emotional and and
I think it's beautiful that yousaid you want to at least
mitigate some of that guilt,some of that feeling that you
could have, or should have, orwould have, you know, done
something right?
Anthony Lanzone (48:38):
Yes, i i I apologize for whatever part I
played and the technicaldifficulties. No worries.
Don Priess (48:50):
We find you innocent. Yeah, we find you
innocent of that.
Susie Singer Carter (48:54):
Here comes CMS,
Anthony Lanzone (48:56):
because there's so much I would love to come
back. You guys won't want me to.
There's so much Absolutely, butthank you for all the work you
guys are doing. I love thatyou're getting the word out
there, because awareness has apositive impact, and hopefully
people can be prepared fornursing homes and long term care
and Alzheimer's and all thatstuff a lot better than they
(49:17):
were before you guys were outthere. So
Susie Singer Carter (49:21):
absolutely, thank you so much, and thank you
for everything you're doing,because it's you're doing such
an amazing you're
Don Priess (49:29):
you're making a difference,
Susie Singer Carter (49:31):
yeah. So thank you very, very much that
Anthony Lanzone (49:33):
guys. Thanks so much for having me on Okay? Take
care, right? Take care, guys,bye, bye.
When the world has got you down, Alzheimer's sucks.
It's an equal opportunitydisease that chips away at
everything we hold dear. And todate, there's no cure. So until
there is, we continue to fightwith the most powerful tool in
our arsenal, love. This is Loveconquers all's a real and really
(00:22):
positive podcast that takes adeep dive into everything,
Alzheimer's, The Good, The Badand everything in between. And
now here are your hosts, Susiesinger Carter and me. Don
Priess,
Susie Singer Carter (00:39):
hi everybody. I'm Susie singer
Carter,
Don Priess (00:42):
and I'm Don Priess, and this is Love conquers alls.
Hello Susan.
Unknown (00:47):
Hi Donald. Welcome everybody to another episode of
Love conquers alls. We're reallyhappy to have you here, and
excited to have you here today,because we have a great topic,
because that has to do with notjust Alzheimer's because, but it
sort of bleeds into ourdocumentary, No Country for Old
(01:08):
people, which is out now and andso many people, when it comes to
neglect and abuse, want to talkabout, well, you know, we have
no recourse. What do you do? Thelaw is set up so so again, it's
stacked against the victims andtheir families and and in and it
(01:30):
is. That's not gonna lie. It is.
And, you know, I don't talkabout it a lot, but I did file a
suit for my mom. I can't talkabout the details, but I can
tell you it is a and I did itfor the reason of of that,
everybody will tell you that'sin this industry, memorializing
and getting it on record.
(01:50):
Because if, if just that, if youdon't, you know, if you're like
me and you're not litigious, butjust to get it on record is so
important in, you know, and, andit was stressed to me from our
CO producer, Rick muncastle,who's the former federal
prosecutor, who said, Susie, youhave to do this. It's, it's
(02:11):
because I was like, I'm notlitigious. I don't want to do
this. And he said, but you haveto. It's the, it's the right
thing to do, is to get them onrecord, at least, at the very
least so and you know, which issomething I want to talk about
with our guest today, who'sactually an elder care attorney.
And I just think it's such animportant topic, so I'm excited
(02:34):
to have them, and I know howhard it was personally, just
even even procuring a anattorney who will take your care
your case, because it is, likeDon said, it's stacked up
against us, and for all thereasons that we talk about in
the documentary and that we'vetalked about on the show, it is,
(02:55):
you know, it is, it is heavilyweighted for the industry and
the protection of the industry,and not on the most vulnerable
and our loved ones and theelderly. So which is what we're
trying to do, educate everybodywith No Country for Old people,
get them and so you don't getyou know, I know I say this all
(03:18):
the time, but don't get SuckerPunched like I did because it's
awful to be in crisis and try tomake smart decisions, and I made
a lot of mistakes, so trying tohelp mitigate those mistakes
with you out there, if youhaven't gone through this yet,
or if you're going through itnow, yeah, it's it all this
information is even it's notit's not pretty, and it's not
(03:43):
what we wanted. It's not it'snot a sitcom, and it's not any
of that stuff. But, you know,it's stuff we need to look at so
that when you're in thatsituation, it's not devastating.
It shouldn't be devastating.
It's it's part of life. It's thecircle. It's gonna
Don Priess (04:03):
be hard, but, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's gonna be hard
no matter what, but it's, it is,as Susie said, it's shockingly
devastating when a you'd have noidea what's going on, when
you're just walking through thisforest of you know, where am I,
and things are jumping out atyou, and you have no idea how to
react to them, on top of justthe emotion of what's just what
(04:25):
is happening to your loved one,it's, it's a perfect storm of
hell. Mitigate, if you canmitigate some of that, it'll
make it a lot better. Andthat's, you know, that's the
goal.
Susie Singer Carter (04:40):
Yeah, yeah.
Because I do think that this isa hot topic, and so I'm really
glad that we got to have thisguest normally, we kibbits and
make things really fun andlight. But I'm fired up today,
Don
Don Priess (04:55):
I'm gonna even say, damn it. See, that's how fired
up I am. I just said,
Unknown (05:00):
damn it. God, God, I know. I'm gonna say son of a
bitch. There, I did it. Oh, myGod. I know, son of a bitch. No.
I mean, honestly, I'm very firedup about this topic. And I you
know, we've had, we've beenlucky, because we've got to work
with very closely for the pastthree years. Our co producer,
Rick montcastle, who's formerfederal prosecutor, who
(05:23):
prosecuted nursing homes for twodecades, never saw any change,
retired three years ago, and Imet him and said, Let's do a
documentary on this, becausethings need to change. And boy,
they really do. And but in thatbut until everything changes, we
need to take our power, whateverit is, and, you know, whatever
(05:45):
we can do to hold everybodyaccountable, that's what we
should do. That's the rightthing to do. It is and because I
was like, I'm done. I don't wantto do this. I I'm I mean, I
wanted to do the documentary,but as I knew the terror, I
knew, I knew the terrain, butlegal, I'm not a litigious
person, and I didn't want toventure into that. It just
(06:06):
seemed very daunting, and it canbe, but honestly, it wasn't as
daunting as I thought it wasgoing to be, because it feels
like the people that are the thethe attorneys
and their firms that are in thisparticular specialty of law have
(06:29):
so much empathy. They have to,because of the way it's set up,
and because they do iteverything on spec and pro bono,
they have to take cases that arevery strong, but they are. They
wouldn't go into this field ifthey didn't have empathy,
because it is not fun,
Don Priess (06:46):
and it's a roll of the dice for them, complete roll
of the ice. It's, it's not like,you know, it's not like a slip
and fall and, oh, okay, we know.
We can go in there and say this,and we get this. It's not, it's
so complicated. It's
Susie Singer Carter (06:59):
very complicated, yeah, and that's
why we have our guest today. DonYeah, do you want to do it? Do a
fantastic, wonderfulintroduction, like you always
Don Priess (07:09):
Donald, why not? Why wouldn't I want to do that? So
do.
I'll do that right now. Anthonyland zone is the founding
partner of land zone, MorganLLP, a firm built on courage,
compassion and justice. Earninghis Juris Doctor from Western
State College of Law, Anthonywent on to complete advanced
training in dispute resolutionat Pepperdine University's
(07:31):
renowned Strauss Institute. He'san active member of the Consumer
Attorneys of California and theAmerican Association for
Justice, driven by a lifelongpassion to stand up for
injustice. Anthony has dedicatedhis career to advocating for the
rights and dignity of vulnerableindividuals in nursing home and
elder abuse cases and holdingpowerful institutions
(07:54):
accountable. We are honored thathe is joining us today. So let's
say hello to Anthony lenzone,hello.
Anthony Lanzone (08:01):
How are you today?
Susie Singer Carter (08:02):
We're good, Anthony, you are one of those
amazing people that that isrepresenting vulnerable people,
elderly people and vulnerablenot just elderly who have bad
experiences, egregiousexperiences in long term care,
which is what our documentary,No Country for Old people, is
(08:23):
about, because I've been throughit. I've also been through the
legal journey in this arena, andit isn't easy. And so we're
really excited to talk to youabout this. So I just want to
know a little bit about yourbackground. Tell the audience
what your background is and howyou came to this, this this
focus on the elderly and thevulnerable in long term care.
Anthony Lanzone (08:45):
Yeah, so I went to law school because I knew I
wanted to represent victims. Iknew I wanted to represent
vulnerable people that havedifficulty finding
representation. And and when Iwent to law school, I was
fortunate to work during the dayand go to school at night, and I
(09:06):
worked at a firm that did a lotof different plaintiffs work,
representing victims of alldifferent types of cases. And
somehow I discovered elderabuse, neglect. At the time, it
wasn't something that a wholelot of people were aware of,
that there's this whole body oflaw in California that tries to
(09:30):
protect elderly folks. And I wasback in 2021, or, sorry, 2001
when I discovered all thatstuff, and I was fortunate
enough to get my hands on acouple cases, and just kind of
really enjoyed the area of law,because I felt like I was
(09:53):
representing the most vulnerablepeople in California at the
time, and I've been doing itsince 2000 And one and we
continue to do it today. And youknow, my law firm has been
fortunate enough to be part ofsome really seminal cases in
California that I think havereally made a positive impact
for elderly folks.
Susie Singer Carter (10:14):
Thank you.
Thank you for doing that. I meanit. These kinds of cases are,
are are classically, classicallyknown to be so challenging,
right? I mean, they are they.
There's so many barriers it putin, put in front of the consumer
(10:35):
and the family members for toprotect their loved ones and and
what makes it so challenging?
Like, why is it so hell Why isit so hella challenging? Why is
it so hard to take these peopleto task when they do something
so horribly?
Anthony Lanzone (10:54):
That's a good question. Part of it is just the
law itself. For example, if youget in a car accident, somebody
made a mistake. They weren'tintentionally trying to do
something. You get an fenderbender, and it's not the law is
written in a way where you'renot going to punish people for
(11:16):
mistakes that they make.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody's human in elder abuseneglect cases, you're actually
alleging that you didn't justmake a mistake. You were
consciously disregarding anexpected outcome, where, if you
don't take care of an elderlyperson, make sure they get food,
(11:37):
make sure they get water, makesure they get turned
repositioned, just the basiccustodial care needs that we all
take for granted because we'recapable of doing those things
ourselves. That's what makes itdifficult, because the law has a
higher burden of proof, and youhave a lot more hurdles to
(11:57):
overcome. In addition to that,when you accuse somebody of
those types of things, you canimagine they're going to fight
like hell. And so when you Sue,I mean, we primarily do, I call
institutional neglect cases, alot of long term care type of
facilities. And so they're wellfinanced, and they're going to
(12:20):
find the best lawyers they can,and they're going to fight like
hell, and that's what makesthese types of cases really,
really difficult.
Don Priess (12:29):
And don't the laws, especially here in California,
really, you know, make it moredifficult, not for a consumer,
to even find a lawyer to take acase, because they have the
limits. They have such lowlimits that a lawyer who's going
to be working on a, you know,30% or 40% or whatever, yeah,
what are they going to be doing?
They'll look at a case and go,Well, you know, I have all these
burdens of proof, and it's, Idon't know if it's gonna be
(12:53):
worth it to for my firm to eventake this case, because the
limits are so low. And I knowthat varies from state to state.
But has that been Is that achallenge, not only for you as a
lawyer, but for the consumer, tofind a lawyer who will take a
case?
Anthony Lanzone (13:08):
It's a huge challenge, but for people like
me, most of our clients, if notall of them, would not have
access to the courts. So all ofthe so we're we have to take
these cases on a contingencybasis, otherwise the plaintiff
won't be able to do them. Andyou're right. Don a lot of
(13:30):
lawyers aren't willing to dothat. These cases are really
expensive to litigate, and I'mnot talking about attorney's
fees. I'm talking aboutdepositions, filing fees,
discovery is just crazy.
Susie Singer Carter (13:45):
Expert witness, expert witnesses at all
that, all that stuff.
Anthony Lanzone (13:49):
It's not uncommon to spend 200 $300,000
on a case, and you got to win,otherwise you don't even get
that back, let alone get paidfor your time, let alone the
clients. And so you're right tofind a lawyer to do these types
of cases is really, reallydifficult for the consumer. And
(14:10):
more importantly is, over theyears, elder abuse has become a
very I guess it's a lot morepopular because a lot of people
have a lot more awareness.
There's a lot more advertisingthese days. Plaintiffs lawyers
are going crazy with theadvertising. And so a lot of
lawyers say, Hey, I'm going toget into elder abuse. It looks
like a great way to make aliving, not realizing, oh my
(14:32):
God, what did I get myself into?
This is way over the top. And soconsumer, because not only do
you have to find a lawyer, youhave to find one that that that
knows the lay of the land, thatcan actually hold the wrongdoers
accountable. So it's reallytricky for the consumer these
(14:54):
days, and then you've got allthese layers that the nursing
homes put in front of theconsumer. Are arbitration
agreements, you know, contractsthat are 100 pages long, where
they don't even realize thatthere's there, that they're
giving up rights. You know,another point that I'd like to
(15:15):
make is, is, a lot of the casesthat I deal with, they all stem
from the fact that the firsttime anybody has a run in with a
nursing home, some tragic eventhappened, right? Susie knows
what I'm talking about. Sheexperienced it with her mom, but
no one's thinking about, Oh mygosh, Mom's going to get
Alzheimer's. Mom's going to haveto go to a nursing home. And all
(15:40):
these life traumatic life eventsare happening and unfolding and
and you're in acute carehospital, and some nurse comes
up to you and says, We'redischarging your mom in 12
hours. You need to find anursing home for him. So all
these traumatic things are goingon as you're making these
enormous decisions andentrusting somebody you don't
(16:03):
know with your with your lovedone, and so that puts the
consumer at a disadvantage.
Again.
Susie Singer Carter (16:11):
It's an unbalanced advantage that they
have over us, because we're in acrisis, and that's the worst
time to make decisions. And weare. We are desperate for
answers, and they aren't there.
And the ones that are there aregenerally, if you're in a bad
place, it's gonna it's bad allaround, like it's spoiled all
(16:31):
around. So the informationyou're getting is not correct,
even though you know in your gutthat it is right, like you're
saying something is not righthere. This is not the way that
you treat human beings. Thiscan't be right. But they're
saying, No, this is the way itis. This is the way it is. And,
you know, this is just the wayit is, and you have to
Don Priess (16:53):
accept them. If you don't like it, you
Anthony Lanzone (16:55):
can take them elsewhere. And a lot of it's
driven to, I mean, that's agreat point. The way it is,
right, you go to an acute carehospital, they say you need to
go to a nursing home. You needrehab. Well, nursing home is not
rehab. A nursing home is 23hours of convalescing, and if
(17:16):
you're lucky, maybe an hour ofrehab. So,
Susie Singer Carter (17:21):
you know, yeah, if you're lucky, yeah?
Anthony Lanzone (17:24):
Like the health insurance is set up to pay the
benefit of the rehab. It's allpart of a system, you know,
healthcare system that's reallybroken. Yeah, I think we all
know that, but the consumerdoesn't. They're they're not
aware of these things before itall like it's always, here's the
traumatic event. You're in thesystem, and that's and that's
(17:45):
the end of it. And so thatreally subjects these folks to
all the problems that you seeand that you guys talk about,
that you bring to the open forthe public. It's a great
service. You guys are,
Unknown (17:56):
well, thank you. I mean, I would like to maybe jump
to because we do talk about thesystemic crisis. We talk about
it ad nauseum. It's in ourdocumentary. We know, I think my
audience knows why, how we gethere, but how, and you know, I
can talk about my experiencewith an attorney and the reason
why I did it, just so you know,Anthony, is that my our other co
(18:20):
producer is a former federalprosecutor, Rick montcastle, who
prosecuted nursing homes for,you know, federally for over two
decades and never saw anychange. And he also, you know,
he had very famous cases againstpharmaceutical which is not much
different. And you know, we alsohave, as you know, a very
(18:42):
powerful nursing home lobby thatmakes it difficult and has
created a very huge barrier forfor the for us, for for the
public. Because, in a way, we'renot the we're really not the
consumer the government is whenyou're on Medicare and Medicaid,
so they're answering to them andnot to us, and that's why they
(19:04):
can say, we'll just find anotherplace if you're not happy,
because they'll find someoneelse and they'll get paid. But
so when what? How does somebodyin California? And hope you
know, and some of this willapply, obviously, across the
country, it is state by state,but we're very close with
canner, which is the CaliforniaAttorneys for long you know,
(19:28):
great. Yeah, they're amazing.
They're the ones that found me,the lawyer that I had, and the
reason why I did, oh, let me Iwas digress, the reason why I
got, why I did it, why I filed acase, which I can't talk about
because we had ended upsettling, but we Rick said, if
you don't file a case, then itgoes then it goes unknown, it
(19:49):
you need to get it memorialized,at least do that. And I wasn't
doing it for money or anything.
I was doing it for. To do whatRick said, I've never filed a
lawsuit ever. So I did, and likeDon said, I was turned down by
four lawyers here in LosAngeles, and the fourth one
(20:11):
said, I'll give you a gift. I'mgoing to tell you why we can't.
Most of these people won't do itis because the place that your
mom was at is beloved. No one'sgonna touch it and that. And
somehow I found canner, andcanner, I let them know, I sent
him my case, like wrote it up,and they said, Well, we'll find
you somebody. We've got yousomebody. I said, how everyone's
(20:32):
turned me down? They said, Who?
And I gave them the names. Andthey said, Well, they're not on
our list. They can't be thatgood. Yeah. But what is the,
what is the process like? What?
What would you recommend tosomeone who says, I know that my
my father was, was, you know,died prematurely, based, you
(20:54):
know, as a result of bad care atthis said facility, what do you
recommend? And a lot of peopleare so burnt out they don't even
want to deal with it. They'rejust like, Oh, it's over. Let me
get away from this awful world.
What do you recommend?
Anthony Lanzone (21:12):
Well, what somebody, when I stumble across
somebody that you just that youjust described. I i always tell
them that if you don't dosomething, you're going to be
thinking about the rest of yourlife. I should have done this. I
should have done that. Itdoesn't hurt to look into it.
Does it? Does your case rise tothe level of something that's
(21:34):
actionable? You don't know untilyou look into it. And so I
always tell people when theywhen I talk to them about
exactly what you're saying isjust give me the burden to look
into it and don't worry aboutit. Let us analyze the case.
Let's figure it out. And ifthere's, you know, a way to hold
(21:55):
people to account through thelaw, then we can do that. And so
that's what I tell everybody.
And you're right, Susie, thatyou know, when you talk about
elder abuse and health care andAlzheimer's, all this stuff in
the big like, I'm at the end ofthe spectrum of that. I don't
have any expertise on what thebest things are for people to
(22:18):
mention the elderly, I'm at thevery, very end of that. So by by
the time people get to me, theonly thing I can do is file a
lawsuit. But here's the thing,if you don't do that, if you
have a viable case, and youdon't do that, then you're not
holding people to account. Andby not holding people to
(22:40):
account, you're encouraging theconduct to continue. And so
perfect, you know, is it goingto change what happened? No.
Does one case change the world?
No, but cumulatively, it has to.
And I've seen changes in theindustry over 20 plus years. And
you know, just making them moreaware, I think, has been a
(23:03):
positive thing. And people havea lot of good outcomes in in
long term care, a lot of peopledo. The problem is when you have
people who are really sick thatneed more than rehab, and they
continue to decline, I justdon't think a lot of the
facilities are set up theiralgorithm. They're like their
algorithm in terms of caring forfolks. It just doesn't work for
(23:25):
people like that and like Ithink that's where the major
change needs to be, and I don'tknow how that is, because I'm
not a practitioner in terms ofmedicine and things like that. I
don't operate the nursing homes,but I can tell you when there's
a problem, when something shouldhave happened that didn't happen
Susie Singer Carter (23:47):
exactly, and I think that once they get
to you, and yet you're right.
You are the last stop. You arethe buck stops with you, because
you are. You get all the awful,hellish things that you know
you're like you, you get to seethe results of bad conduct, of
the egregious behavior,egregious businesses that are
(24:09):
not doing what they promised todo. So that's what you get.
That's what your expertise is,and, and, and it's, it's an
expertise like you said, that weneed, because we need to hold
them accountable. Because if allof us, even if we're burnt out
and just done and we are so sadand so grieve, you know,
Grievous we we want to it'ssomething, it's I why I did my
(24:32):
documentary. I felt if I didn'tshare what I knew, then I'm
culpable. I'm allowing it to gounder the radar again and again
and again. So that's why I didthe documentary, because I
thought I have to share whatI've learned. And so if people
go to someone like you, andyou're firm and maybe you can't
(24:53):
do a trial, maybe there's notenough to do it. But. At least
you can file a complaint. Atleast you Is that correct? Yeah.
Anthony Lanzone (25:05):
I mean, my goal at the end of the day is to give
people peace of mind, yes. Solet me look at the case. Is
there? Should we make acomplaint to the Department of
Public Health? Should we make acomplaint to the medical board?
Should we file a civil lawsuit,there's not enough evidence to
file a lawsuit. There's notenough evidence to file the
(25:25):
complaint, at least the persongets peace of mind is really, I
love that, like at the end ofthe day, that's the service that
we provide as lawyers ingeneral. You know, you want to
give your clients at least thatyou know, and if there's
something to be done about itand hold people account, then we
have the ability to do that.
Susie Singer Carter (25:44):
I have a personal question for you. You
know, having been an activeadvocate for this in since I've
started in three years ago, andI I received so many emails and
letters and people telling metheir stories, and they're so
heartbreaking, all of them,right? And, and they, they
(26:08):
resonate deeply. And, and youseem just like such an
empathetic human being.
Obviously, you know, this is notthe kind of law that you go into
to become, you know, abazillionaire, I don't think, I
mean, I'm sure you do very well,but I'm just saying it's, this
is a difficult this. This isvery difficult what you do. And
you're also dealing with peopleevery single time that have a
(26:31):
bad, such a horrible, badending. And how does that affect
you? Because for me, it's a lot,and I encourage you, like, I
want to hear people's stories.
But for you, how does it? How doyou handle that?
Anthony Lanzone (26:47):
Well, there's enough pain and grief going
around the case as it is, like,I don't need to be, you know,
get involved in that. That's notwhy they're there. They're
actually hiring us to try tohelp with the pain and grief.
And so I always tell my clientslike, you know, number one, it's
(27:09):
not lost on me how odd This isthat you're entrusting this
personal matter with a strangerthat you don't know. And number
two, whatever that burden thatyou're carrying. You know, the
guilt, the uncertainty, theworry. Just take that off your
(27:30):
back and just put it on ourshoulders and let us deal with
it, and let us counsel you andsee what we can do to try to
rectify the wrong. And thatseems to give people a good
sense of relief. And you know,it's not lost to me how horrible
these situations are. And Ithink you're right. Suzy like,
(27:53):
You got to kind of have like,even when we hire people like,
we don't just hire anybody likeyou really have to have that
empathy for people, because ifyou don't, you're not going to
be very successful in this typeof case. It's just too there's
too much emotion and grief. AndI think that that really helps
(28:15):
us, and my whole team really, weall have it, and I think that
makes a big difference for thecases and the client. I mean,
some of the great like, it'srare for a lawyer to get a thank
you from a client, and some ofthe thank you cards we've
gotten, it's just people come uphigh. It's been very rewarding
(28:39):
for
Susie Singer Carter (28:39):
sure. Yeah, I can imagine. I can imagine. So
if you I mean, obviously we'renot going to get into the weeds
of how a case could moveforward, but is it safe to say
that so many of these casessettle before you get into
court? Because I know a lot ofpeople say it's not about the
(29:00):
money like me. I want I justwant justice to be done. I want
it to be exposed. I want peopleto know what happened. I want to
have my day in court. But it'shard to get your day in court
because most of theseorganizations, these facilities,
these institutions, are backed,like you said, by a lot of
(29:20):
finance. They have insurancecompanies, and they do whatever
they can to stay out of court.
Is that correct?
Anthony Lanzone (29:29):
Yes and no, okay, I will say yes. The vast
majority of cases settle, andthe primary reason why they do
is, generally speaking, in everycase, there's always facts that
support your position. There'salways facts that don't support
your position. There's a lot offactors that go into it, the
(29:49):
jurisdiction that you're in, thejudge that you have, there's so
much risk and trial anduncertainty in trial for both
sides that you know it's. It'srisky, and so that's why a lot
of cases settle. And I do thinkthe judicial system is set up
for that, because most peoplethink that a trial is the end of
(30:10):
the case. The trial is like themiddle of a case. The trial will
go on and on, and this disputeis going to go on and on and on
until the parties take mattersinto their own hands and resolve
a case. I tried a case back inhow long was 22,010 or 12 years
ago, and we got a verdict onpart of the case, and then the
(30:36):
rest of the case was dismissed,and we had to go through two
separate appellate courts, theSupreme Court of California, and
12 years later, they were goingto let us try the second part of
the case, and then finallyresolved after 12 years. And
when you have a family goingthrough grief and all this, I
(30:56):
mean, you want to drag that outfor 12 years, you know, you
know, you probably don't want todo that, but we do try cases. A
lot of cases do get tried. Wegot a verdict a couple months
ago, a verdict last year.
There's probably two or threecases that get tried in our law
firm a year. And you know, it'srisky business for victims.
Susie Singer Carter (31:20):
And can you talk? So go
Don Priess (31:21):
on. Oh, no, I was gonna just say because, and it's
touching about something I saidbefore, is that the in,
especially in California, thelimits, the fact that, you know,
the that they basically, there'sso little penalty relative to
winning a case, to that becausetheir their insurance is just
going to pay for it. It's it'stheir cost of business. It's in
(31:43):
their line items, in theirbudgets. It's not that big a
deal for them, because thelimits are so low. How can
somebody do a slip and fall andget $10 million if somebody who
dies of wrongful death or abuse?
You know, it's capped, I thinkin California, like a million or
seven? No, it's 500,000 right?
Yeah, it's so low. And I assumethat that's because the nursing
(32:05):
home lobby is so powerful thatit keeps those limits low. How
does that make any sense? Andare we ever going to see that
change? Because to me, it makesno sense. Well, there
Anthony Lanzone (32:18):
are caps on certain types of cases when it
when it relates to elder abuseand neglect, it all stems around
a health care provider. So ifyou sue a health care provider
for negligence, they're entitledto those cap protections. In
California, several years ago,there was a agreement made that
(32:41):
got passed in the legislature,where those caps are increasing
incrementally over a 10 yearperiod. So that's been positive
for the consumer, and that alsogives more attorneys the
opportunity to make it morepalatable to take on these types
of cases. So that's beenpositive, but it's not as easy
(33:03):
as odd. The insurance is goingto pay for it. It's not going to
make a difference. A lot ofthese large corporations are
self insured now, and theyoperate on credit lines. And,
you know, there's been verdicts,and these verdicts really,
really have an impact on theirbusiness. And so, yes, a lot of
(33:25):
the cases get settled, but Ithink a lot of the trial work
that gets done, those areimportant, because it sets the
tone for the entire industry,and it also pushes people to to
settle, especially thedefendants. They don't want to
be victimized by a $10 millionyou know, even if there's caps,
they could be exposed topunitives, and they're exposed
(33:46):
to attorney's fees and costs,potentially. And so we're still
talking millions and millions ofdollars of exposure per case.
And so again, they settlebecause of, you know, there's
facts that are good for for oneside, and there's facts
uncertainty of the juries. Youjust don't know. For example, I
(34:09):
always you know if you had, if,if your case was, I represent
the plaintiff, and I want toconvince the jury that baseball
is the best sport in the world.
If I had 12 people on the jurythat played baseball, I'd
probably do pretty well on thatcase. But if I had 12 people
that never been to a baseballgame, I probably wouldn't do
(34:29):
very well in that case. That's astripped down version of how
risky jury trials are.
Susie Singer Carter (34:39):
Can you tell the difference? Because
this was something that youknow, Don just brought it up
about the difference betweenpunitive damages and and then
the cap of just, what does thecap relate to in terms of why?
What does that cap relate to interms of the the, is it
Don Priess (34:57):
wrong for death? Is it just neglecting a. Yeah, what
Unknown (35:00):
is and then, what are punitive damages? So we know the
difference, and then, and howare they assessed? And I know
that one of the issues is thatthe value of someone's life is
based on how much income and howvaluable they are to society. So
when you have someone that doesdoesn't have an income, so you
can't, there's no income to losewhen you're on Medicaid, right?
(35:22):
And so that is, that is factoredinto it, correct? Yeah.
Anthony Lanzone (35:27):
So if, if somebody passes away, and if
they make $30,000 a year andthey're 30 years old, that loss
income, that lost future incomeis something that's recoverable
as damages because they died.
Obviously, the vast majority ofour cases, they're retired, they
don't work, and they passedaway. So there's really not that
(35:51):
lost wage element that you'retalking about. Again, the caps
are only applicable to cases ofnegligence against health care
providers. Skilled nursingfacilities are health care
providers. So you have thatelement where, if you just prove
(36:14):
negligence, the caps apply ifyou prove elder abuse neglect,
certain claims aren't capped,and other cap and other claims
are so it's kind of complex toget
Susie Singer Carter (36:28):
in. It is complex. I know you have a hard
out in six minutes, and Iwanted, I just wanted you to
talk about, can you Okay, okay,good. Because, because there's
something else that I justlearned by going through this
case that that is a be in mybonnet, because it is the thing.
It is the it's about the CMS. Soif you settle your case, or you
(36:51):
go, or you go to trial, whateverCMS, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid come in and go, Oh,thank you for going to court and
just and revealing all thisfraud. Now we get to have our
percentage and and to me, that'slike we are, that we are the
wolf in sheep's clothing. Wedid. We didn't overdo any
oversight. We didn't enforce ourregulations that are there and
(37:15):
yet. Thank you. We wouldn't havelooked at it at all, but you
brought it to light. Give ussome money, and they take money,
and it
Don Priess (37:21):
comes out of your pocket, not out of the facility
that caused all of this. Itdoesn't come out of them in
addition to the settlement, itcomes out of your settlement.
Susie Singer Carter (37:31):
And with all due respect, Anthony,
doesn't come out of the cut ofthe lawyer either. It comes out
of the plaintiff's cut.
Anthony Lanzone (37:39):
Correct, correct. So don't let me forget
to address your question aboutthe punitive damages, because I
didn't
Susie Singer Carter (37:47):
okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Anthony Lanzone (37:53):
However strongly you feel about this,
Susie, I think feel about thesame about this. It's okay. So
generally speaking, in an elderabuse and about case, Medicare,
by statute, has an automaticlien. They're saying, Okay,
well, somebody has a bed sore.
They weren't supposed to getthat and we had to expend a
(38:15):
bunch of money to help, youknow, cure that ailment, that
that we wouldn't have had tospend that money but for the
negligence or neglect of thedefendant. So we have somebody
designated it in our office thatwe have to pay a salary,
employment, taxes, benefits andeverything to make sure that the
federal government gets theirmoney back. And they are
(38:38):
painfully difficult to dealwith, and the system that's in
place to make sure they get paidis a disaster. They'll tell you,
you know, hey, we spent $700,000on this, and then six months
later they'll say, Well, we madea mistake. It was really
$100,000 and so whatever youhave to repay Medicare or CMS,
(39:01):
that's part of the damagecalculation. So if we were to go
to trial on a case, we wouldhave a witness come in and say,
I got this letter from Medicare,and they're claiming that we owe
them $250,000 or whatever it is,and then the jury would be able
to determine that as a damage sothat it hopefully wouldn't come
(39:24):
out of their, their their, youknow, the compensation that
they're for their injury. Andthat would be something that
would be separate. But whenwe're talking about settling the
cases, which the majority of theones we do, that is calculated
as part, as as, as part of thedeal, so that the plaintiff
knows, you know, they're goingto have to pay this too, in
(39:46):
addition to whatevercompensation for for the
plaintiff is going to be but itis an imperfect system. It's
unfair, in my opinion, becausewhen Medicare was. Created and
legislated and operated. It wasnever contemplated that that
would have to be something thatwould have to be paid back, but
(40:07):
that's the way it is now. And II wish it was helping Medicare
and CMS with their finances, butit doesn't seem to be doing very
much. So it seems pretty unfairto me too negotiable.
Don Priess (40:24):
It's yeah, and it's negotiable. So it's like, Wait,
it either is a cost or it isn'tthe cost what they negotiate. So
like random,
Susie Singer Carter (40:32):
it just seems nefarious at best. And the
fact that you know that they cancome in and yeah, like you said,
and then negotiate on it. Itjust kind of like taints the
whole concept of it and why theyshould be paying a lot, if
anything, it should be theopposite, like we should get the
plaintiff should get asettlement from from the from
(40:54):
the the perpetrator, I'm not alawyer, and then also from CMS
for not doing their job. But no,we're rewarding them for not
doing their job.
Anthony Lanzone (41:06):
Yeah, it's that gut feeling that you're talking
about. I have it right nowbecause we're talking about it
just makes me say to my stomach,at least. I mean, if, if a, if
a, if a victim of elder abuseand neglect, wants to hold
someone to account, they have todo all the legwork and go to
(41:27):
court and find a lawyer and takeall the risk and do all this
stuff. I don't see why Medicarecan't have their lawyer go into
court when there's an elderabuse case, if they want to
stake a claim to a lien andlitigate their own case and
present. Thank you. Thank
Don Priess (41:43):
you. Because there's so there's so many that they're
not enough lawyers to be hiredby CMS. There'd be so many
cases. It would be, you know,they'd need an army of a million
lawyers.
Susie Singer Carter (41:55):
There's the same lawyers now, I think they
would just have to go they, youknow, they should be punished
for it, and then, you know, andif they have to go, let them
find a lawyer, just like anybodyelse does, a claimant does, it's
on them. It's incumbent on themto take care of their own
business, not on somebody'sfamily who's already gone
through tragedy and now has to,like, it's like pouring salt in
(42:18):
the wound, if you ask me, Idon't disagree, right? Anthony,
okay, so before you have to go,I want you to describe, to
explain what punitive damages,and then we have to have you
back on again for part two,because there's just too much to
talk about.
Anthony Lanzone (42:32):
I'd love to do that. Okay, so punitive damages,
those are damages that come atthe very end of the trial, and
if you prove in your case inchief that the acts of the
defendants were fraudulent,malicious or oppressive, the
jury can can decide if they sayyes, that those that conduct was
(42:59):
then you have the opportunity Toput your proven damage case on
and all Peter damages are,they're very simple. How much
money is it going to cost topunish this particular defendant
for the conduct? And again, thehope is to put such a damage on
them that will really motivatethem to change their conduct.
(43:19):
And so all the punitive damagesare are based on is essentially,
you get to put your case on,this is their net worth. This is
all their income. These are alltheir assets. You know, this is
all their debt. And then thejury can decide, you know,
(43:40):
somebody has a million dollars,is it a cost $1,000 to punish
this person? If somebody has abillion dollars, you know, isn't
it cost a million dollars? Amillion Yeah, and the jury gets
to, gets to determine that,
Susie Singer Carter (43:54):
Anthony, how is there not any? How is it
not? Why is there just,naturally, just punitive
damages, because it how is itnot like, you know, done it
with, with, without, notmilitia,
Don Priess (44:09):
if there's a case, if there's a case, if there's
neglect and abuse, how is thatnot automatically punitive?
Yeah, I don't get it.
Anthony Lanzone (44:16):
Well, the law is written in a way to be
balanced and for it to be fair.
And so just because we accusesomebody of abuse and neglect,
they have the opportunity todefend themselves. And so I
agree with you, if you go totrial and you prove elder abuse
neglect, most of the time,you're going to go to go to the
(44:39):
punitive damage phase, and thejury is going to get to decide
how much to punish those folks.
But as we said, most of thecases resolve, and so you factor
in based on, you know, trialsthat have happened, based on
other cases, and you evaluatethose risks and benefits. I tell
you, I. Again, to exemplify theriskiness of jury trials and
(45:04):
punitive damage and all thatstuff. You know, when I was a
young lawyer getting a lot ofopportunities to try cases, you
know, I won my first case, bigpunitive damage verdict. Won my
second case, punitive damageverdict, and I got an ego about
it, and it's very easy to fallinto that trap, just the feeling
(45:29):
of being able to convincesomebody of malice, oppression,
fraud and they potentially hurtthis person and all that stuff,
and plus the rewards you getfrom representing the vulnerable
person. Then I had a few casesthat I went to trial on and I
lost, and I reflected back onthat thinking, you know, I
(45:49):
wasn't thinking straight. I wasriding the ego train. I felt
like I could do anything. Iconvinced anybody of anything,
and I was a little irrationalabout examining and weighing the
evidence and the risks and thebenefits, and I felt bad. I
think I drove some of thoseclients to trial when the
probably their best interest wasnot to relive that and probably
to resolve the case. And so it'sjust Risky Business all the way
(46:14):
around. It's, it's the bestsystem I know of, and I'm happy
with it, and I think it, youknow, I wish we did more on the
front end of elder care and allthis stuff so we didn't have so
much to do, and we didn't haveto be talking about jury trials
and all that stuff. I don't knowwhat the solutions are over
there, but I know that there'ssome solutions to be had. And
(46:36):
so, you know, I don't know thisis where we're at, and
Unknown (46:41):
all this is where we're at. I know, and you're right
about these, these, you know,when you go to trial, they can
last so long. And we intervieweda registered nurse that we
shielded in our documentary,because she was a whistleblower
who went through a 12 year trialthat was so harrowing and so
(47:02):
awful that by the time it got tothe end, and by the way, there
was like a $300 million judgmentagainst this, you know,
franchise, and they justbasically made a deal with the
judge and got it down to, like acouple million and then, and
then filed for bankruptcy and anopened and with another, under
(47:23):
another corporate, you know,entity. So those things happen.
And she was,
Anthony Lanzone (47:28):
Love to talk about that...that's a whole
other session
Susie Singer Carter (47:32):
for sure, for sure. So there is that stuff
that, wow, this it, yeah, right.
We need a whole nother sessionwith you. So, you know, we'll
have to, we have to. Thank youso much. I know you have to go.
And we had a little bit of alate technical start. So come
everybody who's listening, comeback. We're going to have a part
two, and maybe we'll get somequestions. If you have
(47:54):
questions, send them to us, youknow, you know, we you have all
our stuff in the show notes, andwe'll also have all of Anthony
his firm and ways to contacthim. And I think you gave such
great advice, like, let youdecide. Like, give your case,
don't don't feel defeated. Atleast give your case a chance,
so that you know that you'vedone all that you can. Because
(48:16):
this is an emotional part oflaw. It's very emotional and and
I think it's beautiful that yousaid you want to at least
mitigate some of that guilt,some of that feeling that you
could have, or should have, orwould have, you know, done
something right?
Anthony Lanzone (48:38):
Yes, i i I apologize for whatever part I
played and the technicaldifficulties. No worries.
Don Priess (48:50):
We find you innocent. Yeah, we find you
innocent of that.
Susie Singer Carter (48:54):
Here comes CMS,
Anthony Lanzone (48:56):
because there's so much I would love to come
back. You guys won't want me to.
There's so much Absolutely, butthank you for all the work you
guys are doing. I love thatyou're getting the word out
there, because awareness has apositive impact, and hopefully
people can be prepared fornursing homes and long term care
and Alzheimer's and all thatstuff a lot better than they
(49:17):
were before you guys were outthere. So
Susie Singer Carter (49:21):
absolutely, thank you so much, and thank you
for everything you're doing,because it's you're doing such
an amazing you're
Don Priess (49:29):
you're making a difference,
Susie Singer Carter (49:31):
yeah. So thank you very, very much that
Anthony Lanzone (49:33):
guys. Thanks so much for having me on Okay? Take
care, right? Take care, guys,bye, bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com