Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Term Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances Laguna Honda settlement; confirms rebuilt hospital will have 780 skilled‑nursing beds
Summary
The board passed an ordinance on first reading approving settlement of the Chambers class‑action lawsuit, confirming that the rebuilt Laguna Honda Hospital will have 780 beds and that the settlement represents the interests of current and recent residents in the certified class.
The Board of Supervisors passed, on first reading, an ordinance authorizing settlement of the class‑action lawsuit Chambers v. City and County of San Francisco concerning Laguna Honda Hospital.
City Attorney representatives told the board the settlement confirms the mission of Laguna Honda and states that the rebuilt hospital will have 780 skilled‑nursing beds upon completion. Counsel emphasized the settlement does not preclude the city from adding additional beds in the future if funding becomes available or policy priorities change.
Supervisor Scott Ellsburn and other board members asked whether the settlement limits long‑term stays; City Attorney staff replied there is no provision that precludes provision of long‑term care beyond 90 days where clinically appropriate and that the settlement perpetuates the current mission to provide rehabilitative services and to support residents who can thrive in the community.
The chair asked whether the lawsuit represented a class action; the city attorney confirmed the case had been certified as a class action and that the certified class represents all residents of Laguna Honda, including persons who left the hospital within the last two years. The court, the city attorney advised, must determine whether the settlement is fair to all class members before approving it.
Supervisors also asked whether the settlement requires the city to deliver exactly the bed count voters were told in Proposition A (1999), which some residents and advocates have referenced in past proceedings. City attorney staff told the board there is no legal obligation to implement the original capacity figure in Proposition A; courts have previously concluded the city has discretion in the rebuilt facility’s size and configuration.
On the roll call the measure passed first reading with eight ayes and two noes. The ordinance will return for final passage at a later board meeting after the required public notice and any further procedural steps.
