Monday, February 28, 2011

Court Bars Prosecution of 10 Nurses

 


January 25, 2009

Court Bars Prosecution of 10 Nurses

THE 10 Filipino nurses were branded by the Suffolk County district attorney as derelict in their duties, accused of abandoning five chronically ill children, four of whom were on ventilators, and one terminally ill man by quitting their jobs in 2006 in a labor dispute.
But in a strongly worded ruling, a state appeals court, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn, has barred District Attorney Thomas J. Spota from prosecuting the nurses. The court said that he joined with their employers in forcing them into ''involuntary servitude'' by using criminal sanction to require them to work against their will, thus violating the nurses' constitutional rights under the 13th Amendment.
The Jan. 13 ruling also said the district attorney violated the First Amendment rights of the lawyer who advised the nurses by prosecuting him for conspiracy.
The case concerns 10 nurses, all fresh immigrants, who were recruited in 2005 by a large New York network of nursing homes known as SentosaCare. It is headquartered in Woodmere.
The 10 nurses were quickly dispatched to work for a SentosaCare home in Smithtown, Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, but they said it was soon obvious that the terms of their contracts were not being honored. They joined 16 other Filipino nurses in claiming they were significantly underpaid, did not receive the same health insurance and workers' compensation benefits as other nurses and worked on understaffed shifts.
On April 7, 2006, the 10 nurses submitted their resignations at the end of their shifts, saying they were confident that pediatric and elderly patients would be attended because they knew of SentosaCare nurses waiting for assignment. No patient was ever in jeopardy, they said.
SentosaCare sued them, and in March 2007 the Suffolk district attorney secured a grand jury indictment on misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a child and of conspiracy. The charges carried a yearlong sentence in jail. All 10 nurses eventually landed nursing jobs, though for a time some employers declined to hire them because of the charges, according to their lawyer, James O. Druker.
Overruling a lower-court judge, the four-judge Appellate Division unanimously issued a writ of prohibition halting the prosecutions -- a rare judicial maneuver used when a prosecutor oversteps his powers. While state law does bar nurses from leaving in midshift, the judges found that the 10 nurses did not do so, that the nursing home was in fact able to find the needed coverage and that ''no patients were deprived of nursing care.''
Leonard Lato, who brought the indictment for the district attorney's office, said the office was weighing whether to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
''Do we think the decision was wrong? Yes,'' he said, explaining that the Appellate Division did not fully appreciate the danger to the children on ventilators.
Lawyers for SentosaCare have always denied that the nurses were mistreated or shortchanged.
The Appellate Division judges agreed with defense lawyers that prosecuting the 10 nurses violated the 13th Amendment prohibition against ''involuntary servitude by seeking to impose criminal sanctions upon the nurses for resigning their positions.''
''The imposition of such a limitation upon the nurses' ability to freely exercise their right to resign from the service of an employer who allegedly failed to fulfill the promises and commitment made to them is the antithesis of the free and voluntary system of labor envisioned by the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment,'' the judges said.

Friday, November 19, 2010

11/19/10 NY Nursing Home Infested With Bedbugs: State Health Dept Investigating Avalon Gardens In Smithtown

http://bedbugville.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/ny-nursing-home-infested-with-bedbugs/


11/19/10 NY Nursing Home Infested With Bedbugs: State Health Dept Investigating Avalon Gardens In Smithtown

SMITHTOWN, New York (WABC) — Workers at a Long Island nursing home say a bed bug problem is so bad, they keep moving patients room to room to escape the bugs.

“They’re horrible they’re all over the place and now to know you haven’t been told,” said Cindy.

Cindy asked us to conceal her identity. Afraid speaking out will cost her her job as a nurse at the Avalon Gardens nursing home in Smithtown.

She says managers at the facility notified a select group of staffers yesterday about the discovery of bedbugs

Some workers told Eyewitness News they were not informed.

The state Health Department confirmed they’re investigating a complaint.

According to Cindy, the nursing home officials continue to shuffle residents from one room to another while new patients are being brought in.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Nursing home infested with bed bugs on Long Island

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=7797695



SMITHTOWN, New York (WABC) -- Workers at a Long Island nursing home say a bed bug problem is so bad, they keep moving patients room to room to escape the bugs.

"They're horrible they're all over the place and now to know you haven't been told," said Cindy.

Cindy asked us to conceal her identity. Afraid speaking out will cost her her job as a nurse at the Avalon Gardens nursing home in Smithtown.

She says managers at the facility notified a select group of staffers yesterday about the discovery of bedbugs
Some workers told Eyewitness News they were not informed.

The state Health Department confirmed they're investigating a complaint.

According to Cindy, the nursing home officials continue to shuffle residents from one room to another while new patients are being brought in.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Sick Looting of Home Health Care

A connected company's license to loot—at the expense of the taxpayers, elderly, and infirm

By Tom Robbins

published: October 13, 2010


All these candidates insisting they can clean up Albany should take a good look at the case of a truly stubborn taxpayer leech to see what they're up against: The culprit is a Brooklyn-based firm misnamed Excellent Home Care Services, and it has been happily pillaging state coffers for years without interference.

So far, the finger-pointing in this season of outrage has focused on crooked politicians and public employees whose pensions we envy. The case of Excellent Home Care falls into a much larger category of abuse: the routine looting of public resources by those who prosper regardless of who's in office.

The story starts in 1994 when a group of wealthy health care moguls put all their chips down on the Republican candidate for governor, George Pataki. Leaders of this push included a nursing home tycoon named Benjamin Landa and a pair of wily operatives out of Williamsburg's Orthodox Jewish community named Joseph Menczer and Joseph Goldberger. They raised some $500,000 for Pataki's campaign, the kind of support that cements deep friendships.

They quickly presented the new governor with a list of favors sought. One had to do with the business of supplying home care attendants for the elderly and infirm.

We pause here for a necessary dose of health care policy. The home care idea is simple: Why pay for a hospital bed when nurses and aides can visit homes, thus reducing the burden on hospitals and clinics?

This notion worked so well that home care costs skyrocketed once unscrupulous for-profit companies recognized their earning opportunities. Patients needing a few hours of care could be served all day long; even better, around-the-clock. Who cared? The government was paying.

In his last year in office in 1994, Mario Cuomo's administration slapped a moratorium on all new home care licenses (in health care babble, they are CHHAs—pronounced "cha's"—for Certified Home Health Agency).

This greatly inconvenienced the health care tycoons. They convinced their new best friend, George Pataki, that the moratorium hurt needy New Yorkers, especially those developmentally disabled or mentally retarded. The administration agreed to authorize a small group of new home care agencies (CHHAs—remember?) to serve these special-needs patients. How could you be against that?

This is how Excellent Home Care came to be, and if its operators told a single word of truth about their actual intentions, it does not appear in any record. From the start, many suspected that the new agencies were just a way to get back to making huge profits off Medicaid and Medicare. This concern was raised at an October 1998 meeting of the state's Public Health Council, a panel of medically savvy citizens whose approval is required for new licenses.

Before Excellent's application was discussed, they had to wait for a new member to step outside. This was Benjamin Landa, an appointee of his friend the governor and the proud co-owner of the company, along with Joseph Goldberger's elderly father-in-law.

Once Landa had excused himself, the chairperson of the council's Establishment Committee, health care attorney Susan Regan, raised concerns. "There is always the danger that the special-needs CHHAs might serve as a way around the moratorium," she said, transcripts show.

Heads nodded around the room. A state health official agreed that "an end-run around the moratorium" was possible. Strict monitoring and annual reviews would close any loopholes, he said. With this assurance, the license was approved.

Excellent didn't get around to opening until 2004. It's unclear why, but it's worth noting that the company's original landlord was a Williamsburg firm also in the business of supplying home nursing aides. A probe by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo—dubbed "Operation Home Alone"—later found that Excellent's landlord, Immediate Home Care, had routinely used untrained aides with bogus state certificates. The owners eventually pled guilty to defrauding Medicaid of $12 million.

Excellent distanced itself by moving a few blocks away. Its first report in 2006 showed 780 patients. Of these, less than 20 percent were disabled. The rest were "general population" patients receiving standard assistance. As far as complying with the rules, this was the company's high-water mark.

Over the next three years, Excellent skipped its reports. The state also never asked, let alone audited its performance. It presumably didn't hurt that Excellent's brain trust—in the best Permanent Government tradition—had now become fervent supporters of Democrat Eliot Spitzer's 2006 bid for governor. Menczer and Goldberger, whose Albany shenanigans earned them the title of "the Two Josephs" during the Pataki years, again raised funds, and rallied the Orthodox community. On election night, they were on the VIP side of the red velvet rope hailing Spitzer's victory. At his inauguration, they stood on the statehouse steps applauding.

Meanwhile, Excellent hit its stride. Its original application had assured the state that it wouldn't be a budget-buster, limiting its work to 2,600 annual visits by skilled nurses, and 30,000 by health care aides. That was just talk. In 2008, records show, Excellent billed the state for more than 10 times that amount: 103,400 skilled nurse visits and 338,000 trips by health care aides.

Its mission to serve only disabled New Yorkers was another laugher. In 2008, this needy group accounted for less than 5 percent of its patients; in 2009, just 3 percent.

But earnings soared. Excellent reported $93.2 million in revenue, most of it via Medicaid, from 2007 to 2008. Gross profits were $23 million, with its two partners taking home $4 million apiece.

As one health care entrepreneur who watched them harvest this outrageous fortune put it, "They hit the lottery."

We'd be unlikely to know about Excellent's adventure if not for the death in 2007 of Joseph Goldberger's father-in-law, a man named Jeno Guttman.

The partners sought to re-divide the pie: Goldberger's wife, and a business associate would get the biggest shares, 30.75 percent each. Landa's new cut was 20 percent, with 13.5 percent for his lawyer, a busy political fundraiser from Long Island named Howard Fensterman. Five percent was to be purchased by another lawyer named Joseph Treff, who had been cited in a major mortgage fraud case.

There were just two problems: One was that the Public Health Council had to approve the new owners. The other was that Excellent had also come under investigation by Cuomo's "Home Alone" probe, the same inquiry that had brought down their former landlord. The application was put on hold until this was resolved.

More problems surfaced when the media got wind that Fensterman, Landa's attorney, was lining up contributions for Cuomo's campaigns. Both the Voice and Newsday reported that Cuomo had received donations from partners in a company under investigation. The campaign quickly returned $6,000 from Landa. Fensterman said his own donations were fine, since he was no longer seeking to become a partner. Actually, he simply had his wife, Lori, replace him as a would-be shareholder.

In December, Excellent settled the "Home Alone" charges, agreeing to a $3.7 million payment. There was no admission of wrongdoing, but prosecutors also did not withdraw their allegation that Excellent had known exactly what it was doing when it employed uncertified health aides.

The important part, however, was that the investigation was behind them, and the partnership agreement was resubmitted to the council. State officials were eager to help. In an executive summary recommending approval of Excellent's application, the "Home Alone" settlement was described as a win for the rogue home care agency: "The investigation concluded that Excellent had unintentionally used uncertified aides," bureaucrats wrote. This fabrication was repeated a few pages later: Excellent had "unknowingly" billed Medicaid for the bogus aides.

Asked last week who concocted this sham story, officials refused to say. "It was a mistake," a health department spokesman insisted. "It's been corrected."

But the company's default was harder to hide. The application came up for approval at the August 31 meeting of the Public Health Council. Again, members had to wait for someone with a vested interest to exit the room. This time, it was Fensterman, who was appointed to the council by Governor Paterson in June 2008.

"This is presented as a change in ownership," began Susan Regan, the attorney who had worried aloud back in 1998 about the company, "but we are seeing a number of very disturbing things."

She cited Excellent's failure to serve the special-needs patients it was licensed to help, plus its many missing reports. She also noted how it had soared past its estimated number of patients. It had even ignored a requirement to handle charity cases.

"Their actual operation is not only nothing like what they projected," said Regan, "but nothing like what they committed to do."

Health department officials responded that Excellent and other special needs agencies had been warned to shape up. A lawyer for the company, Jerome Levy, added that his client was "making a diligent effort to improve."

Regan wasn't satisfied. "It's pretty apparent they were just trying to get a full-service CHHA up and running," she said. "I think that was their intention from the beginning." It wasn't enough to reject the application, she said. "I want to revoke this license."

This brought gasps. This is not how officials usually talk, even private citizens designated to serve on review boards. "I can't think of a more extreme example," persisted Regan. "It was essentially a fraud."

In that case, health department officials said, the matter should probably be kicked down the road for the next governor to handle. "The whole issue of home health care in the state is ripe for reform," said the state's director of long-term care, Mark Kissinger. "We'll see if the next governor wants to take this on."

This month, the odds-on favorite to be the next governor was out in Williamsburg trolling for votes. Andrew Cuomo made several stops in the Orthodox community. At one point, he found himself seated at a long table surrounded by prominent local residents. One of them gestured toward two bearded men sitting next to the Attorney General. "And, of course, you know the two Josephs," he said, as Joseph Goldberger and Joseph Menczer smiled and nodded hopefully in Cuomo's direction.

trobbins@villagevoice.com

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The Reinvention of Andrew Cuomo

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-02-02/news/the-reinvention-of-andrew-cuomo/


The Reinvention of Andrew Cuomo

A Prince of Darkness turns White Knight

By Tom Robbins

published: February 02, 2010


For a politician with a true gift of gab, Andrew Cuomo has been operating for more than three years now under some strict and self-imposed rules of the road. As described by the state's own Attorney General, they are:

One: No trash-talking allowed. Two: Let the ball do the talking. Three: Run up a big score.

These decrees are not surprising coming from a guy whose own trash talk helped sink him the last time he ran for governor, back in 2002. That April, he was on a bus packed with reporters headed for Buffalo on a four-day statewide tour announcing his run for the Democratic nomination. He was bantering with those around him—microphones set in Record mode—when he popped off about then-sitting governor George Pataki and how he had let Mayor Giuliani hold center-stage after the horror of 9/11. "He stood behind the leader," said Cuomo, spacing out the words in his rich Queens voice. "He held the leader's coat."

Even for those who agreed with him, the words clanged like a bad shot off the rim. They also sparked an electric shock of recognition: Oh, right, a lot of folks were suddenly reminded. ThatAndrew Cuomo. The bad-talking twentysomething who played the big-shot bully in the big office when his father, Mario, was governor. The kid they called the "Prince of Darkness." ThatAndrew Cuomo.

The now-ancient history is that he never made it back on the bus. A week before the primary, he pulled out of the race. This was a belated bid at fence-mending with those who were irate that he would run against H. Carl McCall, the state comptroller then trying to become the state's first black governor. It was also to avoid ignominious defeat. "Our internal poll numbers had it at 60-18," a former McCall aide says.

These days, Cuomo makes no bones about his missteps. "It was a bad comment," he told the Voice last week. "It was a mistake for me to say that."

But this sort of sudden, near-death experience is often greatly instructive for survivors. And the fallout from the Buffalo bus ride is one of the reasons why the successful reinvention of Andrew Cuomo these past three years has kept him unnaturally tight-lipped.

You don't see him spouting off on TV talk shows. You don't read wide-ranging interviews. You don't hear him commenting on the crucial issues of the day, other than those that fall squarely within the parameters of the Office of the New York State Attorney General.

What you do get is a steady drumbeat of press releases and carefully staged news events presenting The Andrew Cuomo Show: a reality-based series featuring a modern Knight Templar waging a crusade against wrongdoers and rip-off artists. The show itself gets exceptionally high ratings. But the tightly scripted performance by its star—a clearly ambitious politician—has driven some of New York's media right up the wall.

For instance: Over a year ago, Bob Hardt, the news director at NY1, posted a "Cuomo Clock" on his website, counting down the days, hours, and minutes since the sitting AG has failed to come in for a round on the station's influential Road to City Hall show. On Tuesday, the clock stood at 1,126 days.

"I have spoken repeatedly to him about coming on the show, and he has said he would," says Hardt. "But when we try to nail it down, it never happens."

Not that Cuomo doesn't talk often, and at length, to reporters. It's just all cautiously off the record. You can talk for an hour to the state's top law enforcement officer. If you come away with a quotable sentence in your notebook, you've done well.

Even his press conferences—and he averages better than one a week—tend to keep the press at bay. While he does many in-person events outside the city, his preferred mode in media-dense Gotham is to hold telephone call-ins. Reporters sit dumbly looking at the phone while some off-screen wizard selects those looking to ask a question.

A good example was last week's phone presser on cyber-scammers who dupe customers into hidden fees on their credit cards. Among the alleged culprits were some of the Internet's biggest salesmen: Barnes & Noble, Ticketmaster, and the movie ticket retailer Fandango. It was a classic episode in the crusade: The people's lawyer using innovative tools to bring big shots to heel.

The press conference also came two days after Cuomo took a hard elbow from Governor David Paterson, who insists he is running for re-election no matter how much better Cuomo does in the polls (64 percent to 31 percent), or how much fatter his campaign coffers may be ($16 million vs. $3 million). Paterson said Cuomo was hiding out in a "candidate-protection program," ducking the tough issues. A day later, Daily News columnist Bill Hammond—no big Paterson fan—seconded that emotion, urging Cuomo to "quit the fan dance."

Three dozen reporters were on the line listening to the cyber-scam announcement, but only two questions were asked, both pleasingly on-topic. Cuomo aides said they were surprised no one hit the buttons to raise an impertinent query about politics. That's a break Cuomo would never catch at an old-fashioned stand-up conference, where the press gets to piggy-back off one another's inquiries.

But even if Cuomo were more available to the media scrum, it's not certain they'd dent his armor. Like his old man, he's a Zen master at deflecting tough questions. When he showed up at Al Sharpton's Martin Luther King Day event last month, several veteran reporters squeezed off their best shots trying to get him to voice his political intentions.

After the sixth or seventh response, he sounded like his own Greek chorus: "There is plenty of time for politics. Right now, I am serving as Attorney General."

Whatever the media's frustrations, the hide-in-plain-sight strategy has worked remarkably well for the governor-in-waiting. His stay-on-message approach has been the natural complement to the remarkable stroke of luck that left Cuomo as the last man standing of the three top statewide officials elected in 2006. He is now—eight years after his Buffalo belly-flop—poised to become the Democratic nominee for governor. And barring some new nasty foul that takes him out of the game, or a massive voter rebellion akin to last month's Democratic collapse in Massachusetts, he's a likely bet to win in November.

The generally accepted wisdom is that he is ready for the job, that the tantrum-prone, ego-thumping young lawyer whose Jaguar boasted vanity plates reading "AMC ESQ" has been left far behind. Not everyone buys it. He is only 52, and he still carries more old baggage than the airline carousels at JFK, from law partners gone wrong to programs that slipped off track while he was Bill Clinton's housing secretary. On the flip side, there is a proud record of hard work for the homeless and a lifetime of liberal pursuits. And, given the McCall fiasco, followed by a painfully public divorce, even those who longed to see that abrasive young man get his comeuppance might agree that he's paid at least some of those dues.

The attorney general who doesn't like to talk for attribution thinks so. "I've been through a lot in life," he says. "I've learned a lot. I've been up, been down, been all around. I believe I have the context and breadth of understanding at this time of my life that's very helpful."

As for those legendary screams down the phone lines at the Albany press corps, it was part of the times. "When I first started with my father, I was in my early twenties," he says. "Politics was populated with young, hard-charging people. The passion level was very high. The stakes were very high. We were all kids. Older eyes that need glasses tend to see situations very differently, metaphorically and literally."

That's Cuomo the philosopher talking, a familiar and not wholly unpleasant sound to New Yorkers who recall his father's three terms in office in the 1980s and early '90s. The bigger surprise—at least to charter members like this one of the "Andrew Cuomo Is All About Andrew Cuomo" club—is that the son has lived up to Rules Two and Three of his game plan: With the ball doing much of the talking, he's run up truly impressive numbers as a rookie state attorney general.

Colleges conspiring with loan companies to profit off their own students? A month into his job, the AG starts spreading subpoenas around. Three months later, as colleges desperately sue for peace, he wins a new law barring such conflicts. Within weeks, it's a national cause, with hearings before Congress and new federal legislation.

Albany's pork-barrel spending hidden behind a wall of secrecy? Hire a top ethics advocate to help develop an easy-access website for one-stop shopping for government data. Dub it "Project Sunlight" and let citizen fingers do the walking.

Reimbursements for health care expenditures are skewed in the insurance industry's favor by rigged and out-of-date cost schedules? Another sprinkle of subpoenas, another threat to sue. Private health insurers ante up $100 million for a new independent database, amid pledges all around to reform their bad old ways.

Wall Street fat cats still laughing all the way to the bank even after a massive taxpayer bailout? Send attorneys into court to force giants like AIG and Bank of America to cough up embarrassing info about high-cost junkets, perks, and bonuses. In short order, even the change-oriented Obama administration is eating his dust.

These and a few dozen other good-government initiatives have all been accomplished, of course, with a maximum level of showmanship. As carefully as he skirts political debates, Cuomo makes sure he draws every bit of available publicity on his projects. And Cuomo's critics point out that many of his ventures are relatively risk-free since they stop shy of litigation, where the threat of embarrassing courtroom defeat always looms. His response has been a maxim that he posted atop his first annual report in 2007: "It's not who you sue, it's what you solve."

But there's also the not unreasonable suspicion that the job of attorney general is a lousy training ground for would-be governors. It's a notion that has gained much currency in the wake of the fabulous flame-out by Eliot Spitzer, whose own high-scoring record as AG won him the governorship. Attorneys general get to wear white hats while waging high-profile battles against bad guys, the thinking goes, while governors must deal in negotiation, compromise, and deep shades of gray.

It's all true. Different skill sets for different jobs. But there have also been some glimpses during Cuomo's three-year stint in office that offer a decent clue at how he might handle things as the state's chief executive.

One of them was Cuomo's seemingly obscure battle to force the country's largest investment firms to assist customers who had been badly misled about something called auction-rate securities. Former deputy AG Eric Corngold said that he was skeptical at first: "My attitude was that this was some esoteric kind of investment that only rich people make. I said, 'I'm not sure we should get involved in this.' "

Like most of the deputies Cuomo hired, Corngold was a former federal prosecutor and had never met the attorney general before. "At the first meeting of the senior people, I remember him saying, 'You know, none of you really know me. I don't really know you. I don't even know who you voted for in the election.' I raised my hand and said, 'Primary or general?' "

One of Cuomo's first demands was that top aides join him on sojourns across the state to hear what was on people's minds. Whole days were spent in Utica, Niagara, and Rochester listening to mostly humdrum gripes. But among the complaints was that of a couple who had lost their kid's college kitty after their broker persuaded them to put it into auction-rate securities. They'd been told the securities were just as liquid as savings accounts, and paid more interest. But the liquidity dried up when the auction-rate market collapsed in February 2008. "They said, 'Now we can't get our money out and our kid can't go to college,' " recalls Corngold. Another woman said she had had to un-retire after putting her retirement money into the now-frozen securities.

Cuomo launched his probe in early summer 2008. By December, the office had deals with such titans as Citigroup, UBS, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs to unfreeze some $50 billion in investor assets. It was the largest return ever of investor funds. Some $600 million was collected in fines, $125 million of it to New York.

The negotiations revolved around highly technical legal issues, but Corngold says Cuomo was a hands-on participant at a table crowded with megawatt lawyers defending their most valuable clients. "He wasn't the guy sitting in his office waiting for the results. He was a tremendous and brilliant negotiator. I have learned the world from him about how those deals get done."

That's one checkmark in the correct box on the list of what it takes to be governor. Another is old-fashioned gumption. Among the many charges that the attorney general has led with his sword pointed at the enemy, the biggest and most notorious is the sprawling criminal probe into the startling corruption Cuomo's team found at the state pension fund under the watch of former comptroller Alan Hevesi.

So far, five people have pled guilty to paying kickbacks to grease their way into hundreds of millions of dollars in pension investment deals. None are small fry. In December, Cuomo won a guilty plea from a Los Angeles–based financial magnate named Elliott Broidy, a former national finance chairman for the Republican Party who held fundraising soirees at his Bel Air mansion for his pal George W. Bush.

Locally, the best-known name to take a collar in the ongoing investigation has been Ray Harding, the aging walrus who for decades was the chain-smoking mastermind behind the Liberal Party. If ever there was a time for the old-boy network to cash in its political favors, this should have been it. But despite the long relationship between Harding and the Cuomos, it didn't happen.

Over the years, Mario Cuomo and Harding had many duels. But the father stayed on the party's ballot line, and Harding was a Cuomo strategist as late as Mario Cuomo's losing race to Pataki in 1994. When Andrew Cuomo ran for governor in 2002, Harding gladly gave the son the Liberal endorsement. This proved to be his last hurrah: When Cuomo dropped out of the race, the Liberal Party lost its ballot line by failing to snare the required 50,000-vote minimum.

His political career sunk, Harding turned for help to Hevesi, his other statewide candidate. Under the tutelage of Hank Morris, Hevesi's political guru, Harding became a "placement agent," a kind of marriage broker between pension funds and investors. Not that he did any real work. Harding admitted in court that his $800,000 in fees was the product of a series of shams.

The attorney general announced Harding's guilty plea in one of his phone-ins in October. The state's pension funds, he said, had been "looted to reward a political boss." Thanks to either politeness or a lack of institutional memory, nobody asked Cuomo whether he had thought of Harding as a "political boss" back when he was running on his Liberal Party line for the state's highest office.

The bottom line here is that it's refreshing to see a potential governor pull no punches in dealing with a crooked ex-ally. On the other hand, it's a little chilling to hear someone denounce his one-time political sponsor as a "boss," without even a tip of the hat to his own past history.

Harding may still catch a break, providing he helps himself first. The plea agreement allows the AG to reduce the charges if Harding cooperates fully in the ongoing probe. The target here is Morris, whose indictment last March along with Hevesi's former pension investment chief, was the trip wire for the massive investigation. It's one of several pieces of unfinished business that Cuomo would presumably like to wind up before announcing for governor sometime this spring.

Another is the matter of Steven Rattner, the billionaire investment banker and Democratic angel who quit his post as an Obama economic adviser last summer as the pension fund probe was heating up. Rattner has not been charged, but his name surfaced in one of the many nutty aspects of the case: His Quadrangle Group investment firm not only paid Morris a $1.1 million fee for "finding" it a $100 million deal with the state, he also had an affiliate buy the DVD rights to a screwball movie produced by the pension fund director's brothers.

Cuomo also has to decide what to do about another high-profile donor, a hedge fund operator named George Hall whose Clinton Group has donated more than $250,000 since 2005 to Democratic candidates. In 2006, Clinton was part of a three-way joint venture that landed a whopping $750 million of state funds. Cuomo has charged that the deal was manipulated by Morris and the pension fund chief to generate huge fees. One joint venture partner has already pled guilty; another agreed in July to fork over $2 million as its share of the proceeds.

In 2008, after the probe was under way, Hall donated $10,000 to Cuomo's campaign committee. Cuomo's people say donations are sometimes not returned immediately in order not to alert subjects that they might be under investigation. In Hall's case, he got his money back in October—after a Bloomberg News reporter asked about it.

Campaign money is a complicated issue for Cuomo. He has steadily condemned the "pay to play" atmosphere of state politics. He's also called for a new system to cap campaign donations, à la the city's Campaign Finance Board. At the same time, he's raised a ton of money the old-fashioned, pre-Obama way: from big donors.

Inside the huge tub of $16 million he's sitting on, the average donation is somewhere north of $1,000. Almost 600 donors have written checks for $5,000 or more. More than 50 have given over $50,000. It's hard to identify all of them because, under the state's wide-open rules, it's still perfectly legal to split up donations among different corporate entities, whose principals aren't even disclosed to the public.

This is the same anything-goes kind of politics condemned as "disgraceful" 20 years ago by the Feerick Commission on Government Integrity, a panel appointed by then governor Mario Cuomo in response to an earlier generation's campaign scandals.

Scroll through the rolls of Andrew Cuomo's givers and you can find most of the permanent government, a bipartisan crowd of power brokers and fixers who are used to getting their way and are happy to pay for the privilege.

Those two dozen checks for $5,000 apiece from corporations out on Union Turnpike in New Hyde Park? That's Leonard Litwin, longtime pillar of landlord power. Those half-dozen donations of $10,000 and $5,000 from companies on Oak Street in Garden City? It's Al Benjamin, developer pal of Alfonse D'Amato, the former senator turned lobbyist who has been rainmaking for Cuomo 2010.

Here's the Dolan family and Cablevision, dropping $55,000 into the bucket. The Long Island company even rated a personal visit to its Bethpage headquarters in April, the same day that Cuomo held a fundraiser at swank Oheka Castle in Huntington.

Given the system that exists, however, you need multiples of millions to be taken seriously as a statewide candidate. And Cuomo's argument is that any would-be favor-seekers won't get to first base with him because he has more than enough dough to be able to tell them to get lost. His eight-figure war-chest makes him a pressure-resistant "mini-Bloomberg," his crew argues.

"Can you look at my filings and see a lot of the usual suspects?" says Cuomo. "Yeah. That's the campaign system we now have, which desperately needs to be changed."

To ease the sting, Cuomo has imposed a rule that his campaign will not take donations from anyone—other than their attorneys—with matters pending before his office. Donors are asked to sign cards certifying it.

"It's not perfect," he says. " 'Perfect' is no contribution ever." But politics, he adds, "shouldn't be an occupation only for billionaires or millionaires. At the end of the day, you are never going to get past one variable—that you have to elect people who you believe are going to do the right thing. There will always be a force trying to influence them, either monetarily, or politically, or electorally. And that is why you have to elect people who you believe are going to act from the proper motivation."

Last week, the day before he knew a Times story was likely to run describing his agency's dealings with several developer donors, Cuomo held a telephone press conference to try to show where his heart is. He announced plans to sue Vantage Properties, one of the Wall Street–driven operators that scooped up thousands of city working-class apartments and then began harassing tenants out. "We understand their calculus," Cuomo said. "The only thing in the way is the law."

But campaign money obscures even the best of intentions. And when the score is being measured in dollars raised, tough questions often go unasked.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, for instance, Cuomo attended a campaign fundraiser on Long Island held by a prominent local attorney named Howard Fensterman. Back in 2007, Cuomo had decided not to take donations from Fensterman, who had been serving as his Long Island campaign finance chairman. The reason was a report in Newsday that Fensterman was trying to become partners with a health care businessman then under investigation by the AG's office in a wide-ranging scheme involving home health care fraud.

Fast-forward to last fall and here is Fensterman again raising money for the campaign. The largest donor at the November 24 Cuomo event was the businessman in question, a major nursing home operator named Ben Landa, who contributed at least $6,000 in checks drawn on his various corporate entities. Three weeks after the fundraiser, Landa signed an agreement with Cuomo's office to pay $3.7 million, without admitting wrongdoing, to settle the attorney general's fraud probe.

Asked if the donations violated the AG's pledge not to take money from those with matters pending before his office, aides acknowledged that the contributions had slipped through the cracks. "They are being returned," said one. Fensterman's own fundraising was OK, they said, since he had withdrawn his application to become partners with Landa.

The real-life lesson here, though, for a would-be governor is that contributions are often just the opening gambit. Back in the 1990s, Landa was even more generous with his checkbook to then governor Pataki, who responded by placing Landa on the state's Public Health Council. There, Landa hit on the idea that mentally ill patients could be released to adult homes who would then keep them in locked wards. State health officials agreed and, as luck would have it, hundreds of such patients wound up as paying guests at several of Landa's adult homes.

Those abysmal conditions later became part of the disturbing series that won a Pulitzer Prize for Clifford Levy of the New York Times. Levy's stories about the Dickensian adult homes appeared just as the 2002 gubernatorial race was getting under way. Cuomo and McCall held dueling press conferences where they both accused the governor of failing the public.

"This is a tragedy," Cuomo said then. "This is a fundamental governmental failure." The kind of thing he may soon get his chance to fix.

trobbins@villagevoice.com

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Video Clips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkzOiFYOovw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLBL4R19-BQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdPdH37FB40&feature=related

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc - Enforcement Summary Report

http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/enforcement_actions/pfi0949.htm

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc - Complaint and Incident Summary Report

http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/complaint_summary/pfi0949.htm

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc - Inspection Report

http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/survey_summary/pfi0949.htm

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc - Quality Measures

http://nursinghomes.nyhealth.gov/browse_view.php?pfi=0949

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc - Complaint and Incident Summary Report

http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/complaint_summary/pfi0949.htm

NY Nurses, Prosecuted for Quitting, File Lawsuit

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9515922

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1151127&lang=eng_news

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/08/23471.htm

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100110-246526/Federal-civil-suit-vs-Sentosa-district-attorney

http://www.filipinoexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=199:suffolk-da-sentosa-care-others-in-new-lawsuit&catid=15:latest-news&Itemid=153

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=269240

Click here to view Complaint

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Building an empire


BY MICHAEL AMON AND RIDGELY OCHS
Sept. 23, 2007 p. A7
Benjamin Landa and Bent Philipson have built the largest nursing home network in the state with good timing, smart business moves and the right contacts.
In 1987, Landa bought his first nursing home – a facility in Far Rockaway – from his late father’s estate. A few years later, as he acquired more nursing homes, he started raising money for political candidates from both major parties. By 1994, he was a top fundraiser for future Gov. George Pataki said Jeffrey Weisenfeld, a former Pataki aide.
Then in 1996, Pataki named Landa to the Public Health Council, a state board with broad powers to approve health care facility projects, including nursing homes. That year, Landa teamed up with Philipson, who was a supervisor in one of his nursing homes.
During Landa’s eight-year tenure on the council, Landa,Philipson or their wives secured the purchase of 20 nursing homes and became the state’s leading players in the nursing home industry. They now run 25 facilities.
“Their approach is new,” said Neil Heyman, president of the Southern New York Association, a trade group of 64 nursing homes. He added that nursing homes in New York historically had been family run businesses. “They are part of a general trend toward giving nursing home organizations corporate names and structures.”
SentosaCare does not own or run the facilities, which have about 80 investors with Landa, Philipson or their spouses as the common denominator. Rather, the company centralizes administrative functions and provides a brand-name marketing tool.
Their strategy is the only way to, in effect, form a nursing home chain in New York state, said health care experts. Legislation passed after Medicaid fraud and patient abuse scandals in the 1970s required all nursing home investors to be vetted by the state. The laws essentially banned publicly-traded nursing home chains because of the impossibility of vetting thousands of investors behind publicly traded companies.
As the group grew, many nursing home owners said Landa’s council position and friendship with Pataki helped his projects.
In 2003, the owners of 15 nursing homes complained to the Health Department about a replacement facility for Landa’s Brookhaven Rehabilitation and Health Care Center in Far Rockaway being pushed ahead of their own languishing construction projects.
“We are mystified and disturbed that Brookhaven’s application might be given expedited treatment over those other worthy providers,” wrote Carl S. Young, president of the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, in a May 21, 2003, letter to the State Hospital Review and Planning Council, which reviews nursing home projects before the Public Health Council. The project has not moved forward.
Landa recused himself from decisions on his projects and said his council post was “irrelevant to my business strategy.”
Landa said the Pataki administration, generally, was “detrimental to my company’s bottom line,” with its insistence on cuts to Medicaid reimbursements. But Landa’s net worth increased from $7 million to $65 million while Pataki was governor, according to documents filed with the state health department.
A Pataki spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.
Landa, 51, and Philipson, 41, made their flurry of nursing home purchases in the late 1990s, just as many older operators were retiring and cashing out, said Richard Herrick, the president of the New York State Health Facilities Association.
Herrick said he had never seen a group of investors in New York buy so many nursing homes so quickly. State health department records indicate that the facilities’ annual revenues are at least $450 million.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Court Bars Prosecution Of 10 Nurses Who Quit


By JOSEPH BERGER
THE 10 Filipino nurses were branded by the Suffolk County, N.Y., district attorney as derelict in their duties, accused of abandoning five chronically ill children, four of whom were on ventilators, and one terminally ill man by quitting their jobs in 2006 in a labor dispute.
But in a strongly worded ruling, a New York State appeals court, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn, has barred District Attorney Thomas J. Spota from prosecuting the nurses and said that he had joined with their employers in forcing them into ''involuntary servitude'' by using criminal sanction to force them to work against their will, thus violating the nurses' constitutional rights.
The Jan. 13 ruling also said the district attorney violated the First Amendment rights of the lawyer who advised the nurses by prosecuting him for conspiracy.
The case concerns 10 nurses, all fresh immigrants, who were recruited in 2005 by a large New York network of nursing homes known as SentosaCare. The company, with 24 homes or affiliates caring for 5,000 patients, is headquartered in Woodmere, N.Y.
The 10 nurses were quickly sent to work for a SentosaCare home in Smithtown, Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, but they said it was soon obvious that the terms of their contracts were not being honored. They joined 16 other Filipino nurses in claiming they were significantly underpaid, did not receive the same health insurance and workers' compensation benefits as other nurses and worked on understaffed shifts.
On April 7, 2006, the 10 nurses submitted their resignations and quit at the end of their shifts, saying they were confident that pediatric and elderly patients would be attended because they knew of SentosaCare nurses waiting for assignment. No patient was ever in jeopardy, they said.
SentosaCare sued them, and in March 2007 the Suffolk district attorney secured a grand jury indictment on misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a child and of conspiracy. The charges carried a yearlong sentence in jail. All 10 nurses eventually landed nursing jobs, though for a time some employers declined to hire them because of the charges, according to their lawyer, James O. Druker.
Overruling a lower-court judge, the four-judge Appellate Division unanimously issued a writ of prohibition halting the prosecutions -- a rare judicial maneuver used when a prosecutor oversteps his powers. While state law does bar nurses from leaving in midshift, the judges found that the 10 nurses did not do so, that the nursing home was in fact able to find the needed coverage and that ''no patients were deprived of nursing care.''
Leonard Lato, who brought the indictment for the district attorney's office, said the office was weighing whether to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which accepts only a small percentage of Appellate Division decisions for review.
''Do we think the decision was wrong? Yes,'' he said, explaining that the Appellate Division did not fully appreciate the danger to the children on ventilators.
Lawyers for SentosaCare have denied that the nurses were mistreated or shortchanged.
The Appellate Division judges agreed with defense lawyers that prosecuting the 10 nurses violated the 13th Amendment prohibition against ''involuntary servitude by seeking to impose criminal sanctions upon the nurses for resigning their positions.''

Friday, January 23, 2009

Suffolk Can’t Prosecute Nurses, Court Rules

 


By JOSEPH BERGER
Published: January 23, 2009
THE 10 Filipino nurses were branded by the Suffolk County district attorney as derelict in their duties, accused of abandoning five chronically ill children, four of whom were on ventilators, and one terminally ill man by quitting their jobs in 2006 in a labor dispute.
But in a strongly worded ruling, a state appeals court, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn, has barred District Attorney Thomas J. Spota from prosecuting the nurses. The court said that he joined with their employers in forcing them into “involuntary servitude” by using criminal sanction to require them to work against their will, thus violating the nurses’ constitutional rights under the 13th Amendment.
The Jan. 13 ruling also said the district attorney violated the First Amendment rights of the lawyer who advised the nurses by prosecuting him for conspiracy.
The case concerns 10 nurses, all fresh immigrants from the Philippines, who were recruited in 2005 by a large New York network of nursing homes known as SentosaCare. The company, with 24 homes or affiliates caring for 5,000 patients, is headquartered in Woodmere.
The 10 nurses were quickly dispatched to work for a SentosaCare home in Smithtown, Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, but they said it was soon obvious that the terms of their contracts were not being honored. They joined 16 other Filipino nurses in claiming they were significantly underpaid, did not receive the same health insurance and workers’ compensation benefits as other nurses and worked on understaffed shifts.
On April 7, 2006, the 10 nurses submitted their resignations and quit at the end of their shifts, saying they were confident that pediatric and elderly patients would be attended because they knew of SentosaCare nurses waiting for assignment. No patient was ever in jeopardy, they said.
SentosaCare sued them, and in March 2007 the Suffolk district attorney secured a grand jury indictment on misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a child and of conspiracy. The charges carried a yearlong sentence in jail. All 10 nurses eventually landed nursing jobs, though for a time some employers declined to hire them because of the charges, according to their lawyer, James O. Druker.
Overruling a lower-court judge, the four-judge Appellate Division unanimously issued a writ of prohibition halting the prosecutions — a rare judicial maneuver used when a prosecutor oversteps his powers. While state law does bar nurses from leaving in midshift, the judges found that the 10 nurses did not do so, that the nursing home was in fact able to find the needed coverage and that “no patients were deprived of nursing care.”
Leonard Lato, who brought the indictment for the district attorney’s office, said the office was weighing whether to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which accepts only a small percentage of Appellate Division decisions for review.
“Do we think the decision was wrong? Yes,” he said, explaining that the Appellate Division did not fully appreciate the danger to the children on ventilators.
“Ignoring a ventilator alarm could result in death,” he said. “It is unreasonable to conclude that requiring the nurses to give at least four hours’ notice is akin to slavery.”
Lawyers for SentosaCare have always denied that the nurses were mistreated or shortchanged and contended that the company had satisfactorily employed more than 350 nurses from the Philippines.
The Appellate Division judges agreed with defense lawyers that prosecuting the 10 nurses violated the 13th Amendment prohibition against “involuntary servitude by seeking to impose criminal sanctions upon the nurses for resigning their positions.”
The 13th Amendment was written in 1865 to forbid slavery and involuntary servitude.“The imposition of such a limitation upon the nurses’ ability to freely exercise their right to resign from the service of an employer who allegedly failed to fulfill the promises and commitment made to them is the antithesis of the free and voluntary system of labor envisioned by the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment,” the judges said.
Mr. Druker, the lawyer for the nurses, said his clients were “absolutely beside themselves with joy and relief. Some of them have been denied really good job opportunities. Now they’ve got their names cleared.”

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Filipino Nurses, Healers in Trouble


Filipino Nurses, Healers in Trouble



Published: January 27, 2008

THEY are recruited in their homeland with perks like free airfare. Some have been offered thousands of dollars in bonuses to relocate. And in the process, they have become a mainstay of the New York area’s hospitals and nursing homes.

Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
Juliet Anilao and Claudine Gamiao, right, two of the nurses.

Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center in Smithtown, N.Y., where nurses are accused of resigning without sufficient notice.
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center in Smithtown.
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
Sharon Bannon, reading to her disabled daughter Jodie, a patient in the center’s pediatric unit.
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
Meeting at an office in Garden City, N.Y., are Felix Vinluan standing between Claudine Gamiao, left, and Juliet Anilao, nurses.

They are nurses from the Philippines, and they are highly prized here because they speak English, are trained in American-caliber medicine and enjoy a reputation for tender care — the legacy of a society in which families tend to their own sick and aging relatives.
“We’re honest, industrious and don’t complain a lot,” explained Elmer Jacinto, 32, a registered nurse.
His voice, however, carried a palpable note of sarcasm. He and nine other Filipino nurses on Long Island did complain, and now they find themselves caught in what he called “a nightmare” — a disturbing new chapter in the upbeat story of one of this nation’s most successful immigrations.
The 10 nurses are under indictment in Suffolk County on charges of endangering the welfare of five chronically ill children and one terminally ill man. They are accused of walking off their jobs at the Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center in Smithtown in April 2006 without providing sufficient notice for the nursing home to replace them on coming shifts.
Although their resignations were prompted by a seemingly commonplace dispute with their employers over what the nurses say were broken promises and shabby working conditions involving a total of 26 Filipino nurses and a physical therapist, the 10 defendants could each be sentenced to a year in jail and lose their nursing licenses. Their trial was scheduled to start Monday, but it appears that it will be put off until March.
The district attorney’s office conceded that the patients suffered no harm, and acknowledged that it could not recall a similar prosecution against nurses in the state. But it said the nurses’ crime was serious: four of the children they left behind were on ventilators that demand round-the-clock monitoring.
“They walked off their jobs, and the critical care patients didn’t have the health professionals to attend to their needs,” said Robert Clifford, a spokesman for Thomas J. Spota, the Suffolk district attorney.
The case has drawn wide attention and outrage in the Philippines, where legislators have held hearings into how the nurses were treated by the company that recruited them. Filipinos there and in the United States have rallied to support the nurses, joined by the American Nurses Association, which has said in a statement that “the real patient endangerment lies in the deplorable conditions that led the nurses to leave.”
The pushback has even taken on a political tinge. Commentators in both countries, citing an investigation by Newsday, have questioned whether favoritism was shown the nursing home owners because of their political influence and campaign contributions, and because of letters written to the Philippine president and other officials by Senator Charles E. Schumer. The senator and the owners have denied exerting any unusual pressure.
But what no one denies is that the case is a startling anomaly in what has been a remarkably successful migration of people seeking to work in a single occupation. More than half of American nurses trained abroad are from the Philippines, and they alleviate a perennial shortage of nurses in this country.
Of the New York area’s 215,000 Filipinos, 3 out of 10 work as nurses or other health-care practitioners, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by Susan Weber-Stoger, a Queens College demographer. Many of the rest are their spouses, children or aging parents. That migration explains the large colonies of Filipinos in places like Jersey City and Bergenfield, N.J., a middle-class suburb, where Robert C. Rivas, mayor from 1999 to 2003, claimed to be the only Filipino mayor in the Northeast.
The indicted nurses pose a strange counterpoint to that success: the image of highly educated legal immigrants complaining about being exploited as green, overly trusting newcomers.
“You were treated like dirt,” said Juliet Anilao, 36, a mother of two and another of the nurses indicted. “All we wanted to do was work and send money home.”
MR. Jacinto, a soft-spoken native of a small Philippines island, saw medicine as his ticket out of poverty. He not only received a nursing degree, but also graduated from medical school in the Philippines in 2004 with stellar board scores.
Deciding to leave one’s homeland is always wrenching, but American salaries were a large incentive. “You can earn here $3,000 a month in America while a doctor in the Philippines earns $400 a month and a nurse $200,” Mr. Jacinto said.
He came to New York in November 2005 with 21 other nurses who had been recruited by a Filipino agency that works mainly for SentosaCare, a network of 16 nursing homes with headquarters in Woodmere, N.Y., and operated by Benjamin Landa of Brooklyn and Bent Philipson of Monsey, N.Y. Mr. Landa owns eight other homes independently, and together with SentosaCare, the network of 24 homes has more than 5,000 patients and 5,000 employees. The 22 nurses who came over here in November 2005 say they were promised they would earn the same pay as American nurses and would quickly receive green cards giving them the status of permanent residents.
But Mr. Jacinto says he soon got some surprises: for two months, he was paid as a clerk, at a salary far below that of a nurse. It took more than half a year to get the green card. And he was not assigned to the SentosaCare-affiliated home in Queens that had sponsored his entry, but to Avalon, 40 miles east.
For weeks, he said, he slept on a couch in a frigid living room of a nurses’ staff house in Smithtown where the only toilet was frequently clogged. When he finally received nurses’ pay, he said, it was $24 an hour instead of the $34 that federal law requires immigrant nurses be paid to prevent undercutting of American workers’ salaries. He did not receive the same health insurance and workers’ compensation benefits as other nurses, he said, and was not paid for sick days or holidays.
Ms. Anilao said Avalon employed so few aides on the night shift that she regularly had to change soiled diapers and sheets and cart them away. The nurses complained that raises they were promised were wiped out by a reduction in work hours from 37.5 per week to 35.
Howard Fensterman, SentosaCare’s lawyer, denied that the nurses were mistreated or shortchanged, and rejected complaints that staffing was inadequate. SentosaCare, he said, had successfully employed 350 nurses from the Philippines over the years and had never experienced a wave of resignations.
The nurses say that when their complaints went unaddressed, they turned to the Philippines consulate in New York, which put them in touch with an immigration lawyer, Felix Vinluan. Mr. Vinluan concluded that their contract had been breached and on April 6, 2006, he filed a discrimination complaint with immigration officials in Washington. He also advised the nurses that one option was to resign.
On April 6 and 7, 14 nurses in four SentosaCare homes other than Avalon submitted their resignations, and late on the afternoon of April 7, 10 Avalon nurses followed suit. They say they offered so little notice because they were worried that SentosaCare might drum up charges against them that could jeopardize their licenses.
Still, the nurses say, they left confident that the elderly and the patients in a pediatric unit would be taken care of because they knew of nurses waiting for assignment in two other SentosaCare staff houses. According to the nurses and their lawyers, only one of the 10 indicted Avalon nurses was working at the time the resignations were handed in and only two were scheduled for 7 a.m. shifts 12 hours away. Some had as many as four days off before resuming work.
“No patient was ever placed in jeopardy,” Ms. Anilao said. “Not a single shift was unattended.”
Susan O’Connor, Avalon’s administrator, has said, associates say, that she had only 12 hours to rustle up replacements for five nurses who had resigned and were scheduled to start the 7 a.m. shift. In her 30-year career — enduring snowstorms, fires and strikes — the walkout created the single scariest night of her professional life, she has said. Ms. O’Connor is a major witness in the criminal case and has been advised by SentosaCare lawyers not to comment publicly.
Mr. Fensterman has argued that finding substitutes was especially difficult because the replacements had to be experienced in monitoring ventilators for sick children. “If they vomit into the tubes and the tubes are not cleared, they can asphyxiate themselves,” Mr. Fensterman said.
Sharon Bannon of Farmingdale, whose severely brain-damaged daughter Jodie, 24, is a patient in the pediatric unit and requires a breathing apparatus, said she was upset that the nurses resigned abruptly.
“They left my child unattended and it could have been a potential hazard,” she said in a telephone interview. “Jodie is critical and she can’t be left. Luckily, the home was able to handle it.”
THE case escalated. SentosaCare filed a civil suit charging the nurses with breach of contract and lodged a complaint with the State Department of Education. The nurses filed complaints against SentosaCare’s recruiting arm in the Philippines, and the government effectively suspended the company’s recruiting privileges.
But in June 2006, the suspension was lifted, and last September Newsday reported that Senator Schumer had written four letters over two months to officials in the Philippines — including one to the president — to get the suspension reviewed. In the two months after the suspension was revoked, the newspaper reported, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, whose chairman is Mr. Schumer, received nearly $75,000 from investors, vendors and lawyers associated with SentosaCare.
Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, said all the senator asked for was due process, not “any outcome in any direction.” Mr. Schumer, he added, writes letters for many constituents and SentosaCare “was a major employer on Long Island and operates in an industry Schumer is active on.”
Newsday also reported that the SentosaCare partners, allied investors and their lawyer, Mr. Fensterman, have donated $750,000 to Democratic and Republican campaign funds, though Mr. Fensterman said that the amounts lumped together the contributions from his associates in other industries. In 2003, Mr. Fensterman contributed $1,500 to the campaign of Mr. Spota, the district attorney prosecuting the nurses, the newspaper said.
Mr. Fensterman is chairman of the Nassau County Industrial Development Agency, which awards leases and tax incentives, and is Mr. Schumer’s campaign finance chairman for Long Island. Mr. Landa was, during the governorship of George E. Pataki, a member of the state’s Public Health Council, which reviews proposals for new health care institutions like nursing homes.
Mr. Fensterman and spokesmen for Mr. Schumer and the district attorney’s office deny that campaign contributions played any role in the prosecution of the nurses or the Philippine government’s actions.
“Because I made a $1,500 contribution to Tom Spota four years before, does that mean that I’m disenfranchised from seeking the help of an elected official?” Mr. Fensterman asked.
In September 2006, after two hearings, the New York State Education Department, which licenses nurses, rejected SentosaCare’s charge that the nurses had abandoned patients. (That finding has been buttressed by the results of a New York State Department of Health review, announced on Jan. 16. “The shifts were covered,” said a department spokesman, Jeffrey Hammond, “and the patients were not placed in jeopardy.”)
But last March, the district attorney, who had met 10 months earlier with Mr. Fensterman, Mr. Landa and Mr. Philipson, secured the grand jury indictment, which also charged the nurses’ lawyer, Mr. Vinluan, with conspiring in the resignations.
James O. Druker, a lawyer for the nurses, argues that the case should never have been brought. Mr. Vinluan, he said, was “indicted for giving the nurses legally correct advice” and his clients “were indicted for following his advice.”
It took months for some of the nurses to find other jobs, they say, because every time they applied employers would Google their names and up would pop articles about the indictment. Mr. Jacinto and Ms. Anilao now work at a hospital in Queens.
Something of a mystery still lingers: Why were matters allowed to reach such a state? Why would nurses who forsook their homeland to seek well-paying work risk those jobs? And why would SentosaCare’s owners risk their successful recruitment of Filipinos by seeking prosecution?
Company officials say they sought to keep nurses from imperiling fragile patients.
“A message needs to be sent,” Mr. Fensterman said, “that if nurses can simply walk out on patients with impunity, that is a danger for all Americans, whether in nursing homes or hospitals.”
One nurse, Ms. Anilao, said some things were more important than a salary.
“I wasn’t raised by my parents to bow down,” she said, “ and take all those things just for the money.”