Assisted Living Facility in West Duluth Settles Wrongful Death Suit

Healthcare Compliance Perspective:

A false claim may result from knowingly providing insufficient resources to ensure elopement risk prevention. Promises made to families are sufficient proof of knowledge and intent. Facilities must assess residents for elopement risk at time of admission, and document elopement prevention in the care plan, if needed.

The wrongful death suit filed by the family of a 74-year-old woman with dementia was settled without going to trial last week. In 2013, the woman, a resident at an assisted living facility, was able to wander away from the facility despite her family and the facility’s efforts to provide safe guards meant to ensure her safety. The woman’s disappearance was the impetus for a nine-month-long search by her family, facility staff and a concerned community. Her mummified remains were finally found next to a fence in a large local park.

Earlier this year, a judge determined that the woman’s death was due to her elopement from the assisted living facility. Consequently, the facility accepted responsibility for her death and agreed to a settlement with the woman’s family. The terms of the settlement were kept confidential.

The woman had been diagnosed with several issues that included-“wandering, orientation issues, and self-injurious behavior.” The facility, at the request of the family, had attempted to implement a care plan that involved not allowing the resident to leave the facility without being accompanied by either a staff or family member.

In an investigation by the Department of Health, a facility employee revealed that the facility gave the family a false sense of security by implying they had a WanderGuard security system when they did not. The employee said that the facility had obtained a quote for putting the system in place, but they did not do so because it would have cost thousands of dollars. However, the health department did not issue any sanctions against the facility because there was some confusion about the woman being her own guardian at the time she left the facility.