The
2013 legislature has tweaked the Oregon elder abuse reporting
requirements in a manner that makes Oregon's system for discovering,
preventing and punishing elder abuse even weirder and more unwieldy
than it was before. Prior to the changes you were required to report
elder abuse if you learned about it while practicing one of the
following professions:
(a)
Physician, naturopathic physician, osteopathic physician,
chiropractor, physician assistant or podiatric physician and surgeon,
including any intern or resident.
(b)
Licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, nurse practitioner,
nurse’s aide, home health aide or employee of an in-home health
service.
(c)
Employee of the Department of Human Services or community
developmental disabilities program.
(d)
Employee of the Oregon Health Authority, county health department or
community mental health program.
(e)
Peace officer.
(f)
Member of the clergy.
(g)
Regulated social worker.
(h)
Physical, speech or occupational therapist.
(i)
Senior center employee.
(j)
Information and referral or outreach worker.
(k)
Licensed professional counselor or licensed marriage and family
therapist.
(L)
Any public official who comes in contact with elderly persons in the
performance of the official’s official duties.
(m)
Firefighter or emergency medical services provider.
(n)
Psychologist.
(o)
Provider of adult foster care or an employee of the provider.
(p)
Audiologist.
(q)
Speech-language pathologist.
The
new
law
adds
dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and attorneys. It also requires
reporting even if the professional is not practicing his profession,
Thus, if a dentist is at a barbecue at a park and witnesses elder
abuse a couple of picnic tables down, he must report it.
The
new requirement doesn't change much, but because it now includes
attorneys it has sparked a fair amount of discussion among lawyers.
Attorney-client
confidentiality remains inviolate. Thus, lawyers are exempt from
reporting if information about elder abuse comes from a client or is
learned in the course of representation and would be detrimental to a
client. This means that if you hire me and then admit to committing
elder abuse, I cannot report you. Similarly, if you come to me and
say you are a victim of elder abuse but you want to keep it secret, I
will have to keep it secret. Beyond that I am be required to report.
The
problem with including lawyers is that we elder law lawyers spend a
lot of time speculating about what might or might not be considered
elder abuse. Take a look at what the reporting statute defines as
elder abuse:
(a)
Any physical injury to an elderly person caused by other than
accidental means, or which appears to be at variance with the
explanation given of the injury.
(b)
Neglect.
(c)
Abandonment, including desertion or willful forsaking of an elderly
person or the withdrawal or neglect of duties and obligations owed an
elderly person by a caretaker or other person.
(d)
Willful infliction of physical pain or injury upon an elderly person.
(e)
An act that constitutes a crime under [a bunch of other Oregon laws].
(f)
Verbal abuse.
(g)
Financial exploitation.
(h)
Sexual abuse.
(i)
Involuntary seclusion of an elderly person for the convenience of a
caregiver or to discipline the person.
(j)
A wrongful use of a physical or chemical restraint of an elderly
person, excluding an act of restraint prescribed by a licensed
physician and any treatment activities that are consistent with an
approved treatment plan or in connection with a court order.
Let's
take verbal abuse to start. I know a couple of dive bars where old
retired men hang out. Insults, profanity and threats coming from and
directed at people over sixty-five are simply part of the ambiance of
the place. It goes on every day from opening to closing. If I have to
report verbal abuse of elders, should I simply make a list of those
places and report it to the Department of Human Services every
morning.
Neglect
is elder abuse. Try defining “neglect” in the real world and then
reporting it to APS every time you hear of something that fits the
bill.
Another
statute says that it is financial elder abuse to wrongfully take
property from an elder. So what is "wrongful?" We know that
it is wrongful to take property using undue influence, but the law of
“undue influence” is incomprehensible even to lawyers like me who
practice in the field.
I
have commented among my colleagues that I will soon be sixty-five
years old and will then be a vulnerable person. The elder abuse
statutes will apply to me. I intend to continue practicing law. If
somebody doesn't pay my bill, it will no longer be a collection
matter. It will be elder financial abuse because the client has
wrongfully taken the services of an elder without paying for it. If
someone in the heat of litigation curses at me it is elder abuse.
After the new statute goes into effect, maybe I will be required to
report the curses and the unpaid bill to Adult Protective Services so
its agents can investigate. I know quite a few APS agents. I can just
imagine their laughter when I make that call.
Where
all of this gets dangerous is in an area of elder abuse we in the
field refer to as bystander liability. Under Oregon law someone who
commits elder abuse can be found liable in a civil case for three
times the amount of damage plus attorney fees. Thus, if you are joint
on grandma's bank account (and you never put any money in the
account) and you take out a hundred dollars to treat yourself to a
night at the casino, you can probably be required to pay grandma back
$300 plus the attorney fees it cost grandma to go after you.
The
kicker in the above scenario is that if your next door neighbor knows
you are taking grandma's money to gamble with and the neighbor
doesn't take reasonable steps to stop you, the neighbor can be
required to pay grandma three times the amount of her loss plus
attorney fees. The bystander who knew about the abuse and didn't do
anything about it is as liable as the person who did it. And
bystander liability applies to everybody, not just people in the
professions listed in the reporting statute. The nice thing about
bystander liability is that we lawyers can pick a bystander with
money. In the case of grandma's hundred dollars, you are not a good
defendant because you have a gambling problem. Your neighbor,
however, may have stayed out of the casino and put what he had in
savings. He is the one we lawyers will want to sue.
The
law in this area has never been clear. It would seem that if the
neighbor reported your gambling trip to Adult Protective Services,
the report would be considered a reasonable action to prevent the
abuse. The statute doesn't say that, but lawyers tend to think so.
The theory is that the statute sets out a standard of reasonableness
for people in the listed professions. I have never seen a judge say
this, but many lawyers have suggested that in the right case, a judge
might say it.
If
my interpretation of the law is correct, the reporting statute is one
that protects professionals from liability where the average person
gets no protection at all. Bystander liability applies to everyone. A
professional who complies with the reporting requirement might have
some protection against bystander liability. A non-professional who
reports, even though having no obligation to do so, would also get
the protection. But a non-professional who read the statute and
thought that he or she did not have a duty to report could be in big
trouble.
And
when you do report, what happens? Adult Protective Services has the
ability to investigate and punish wrongdoers in criminal court. Most
cases involving elders, however, are not so dire that evil doers need
to be arrested and sent to jail. The elders most often need help with
daily living, money management, maybe a restraining order, a
conservatorship, or even a guardianship. APS does not provide these
things. (I do, but you have to hire me. That costs money.) The job of
APS is to prosecute the perpetrators, not necessarily help the elder.
I am all for punishing bad guys, but the first rule in my practice is
to protect our old folks. Putting someone in jail seldom does that.
The
legislature wants to stop elder abuse. The current system works for
those severe cases where the behavior is criminal and the perpetrator
is clearly a bad guy. The system, however, is less useful on the
edges where we find nothing but a dysfunctional family and clever
lawyers willing to use any boorish behavior as an excuse to sue
somebody in civil court for elder abuse. Often it is hard to tell
whether abuse has occurred or not, and even when it has, putting
people in jail or having family members sue each other for civil
damages may not be the best way to put the family back on track.