Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Term Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to drop 'intentional' standard for nursing‑home neglect raises liability and staffing questions
Summary
Representative Potter's House Bill 7,488 would remove 'intentional' and 'willful' qualifiers from abuse and neglect statutes in long‑term care, aligning definitions with federal law, supporters said; witnesses highlighted chronic understaffing and corporate ownership as drivers of neglect while lawyers flagged civil‑ and criminal‑liability interactions.
Rep. Potter told the House Judiciary Committee the aim of House Bill 7,488 is to make claims of abuse and neglect in nursing homes actionable without requiring proof of intent, bringing Rhode Island into alignment with federal definitions and neighboring states.
"This bill really aims to further promote that care by building more accountability among the people who care for them," Potter said, arguing that neglect — a failure to provide necessary care — should not have to be shown as intentional to be remedied.
Witnesses emphasized staffing as a primary driver of neglect. Kathleen Girard of Advocates for Better Care said, "It is so often understaffing that causes neglect of residents and patients," and described common preventable harms such as pressure sores and missed assistance with eating. Anthony Leone, a lawyer representing families, told members that corporate ownership and private‑equity management of nursing facilities contribute to under‑resourcing, and that civil liability will more often fall on facility owners than individual caregivers.
Committee members explored legal consequences and liability allocation. Rep. Place and others asked whether the bill would expose individual caregivers to personal civil or criminal liability; lawyers answering the questions said employers and facilities are generally the most realistic targets of civil claims under corporate‑negligence theories, while acknowledging employees could be liable in some cases.
Supporters urged the panel to treat vulnerable residents consistently with protections extended to other populations; opponents cautioned about unintended consequences for staffing and the need to avoid creating criminal liability where not intended. The committee concluded testimony and took no immediate vote.
