ANTHONY LANZONE, ESQ.: The Legal Maze of Elder Abuse: Why Justice Is So Hard to Get

The moment a loved one lands in long‑term care, everything feels urgent and unclear. We’ve been there—rushed discharges, impossible forms, promises that don’t match reality—and we wanted a straight answer on what legal accountability looks like when neglect or abuse causes real harm. That’s why we sat down with elder abuse attorney Anthony Lanzone to map the path from pain to action without sugarcoating the struggle.

In Episode 113, we talk about why nursing home cases are so hard, what families can realistically expect, and how accountability actually happens. We share the steps to document harm, find the right lawyer, and protect your peace of mind while you pursue justice.

• systemic barriers that shield long-term care providers
• why elder neglect requires proof beyond simple negligence
• how damages caps shape which cases lawyers can take
• settlements versus trials and real risk trade-offs
• punitive damages and when they apply
• CMS liens and how they reduce awards
• practical steps to document abuse or neglect
• where to file complaints if you cannot sue
• why memorializing misconduct still matters

Contact Anthony Lanzone:  Email: mycase@www.lanzonemorgan.com
Phone: 888-887-9777

LINKEDIN

#LoveConquersAlz, #ElderCare, #ElderLaw, #NursingHomeReform, #ElderAbuseAwareness, #SeniorAdvocacy, #LongTermCare, #JusticeForOurElders, #PeopleOverProfit, #HealthPodcast, #AdvocacyPodcast

Chapters

• 0:00 Love Conquers Allz Opens
• 0:52 Why Legal Action Matters
• 6:31 Meet Attorney Anthony Lanzone
• 10:56 Why These Cases Are So Hard
• 15:11 Finding A Lawyer Who Will Take It
• 19:30 Crisis Decisions And Bad Contracts
• 24:17 Should You File Or Move On
• 28:24 Settlements, Trials, And Risk
• 33:20 Caps, Punitive Damages, And Change
• 37:05 The CMS Lien Problem
• 42:36 What Punitive Damages Really Do
• 46:05 Hard Truths And Next Steps

Transcript

Don Priess: 0:00

When the world has got you down, Alzheimer's sucks. It's an equal opportunity disease that chips away at everything we hold dear. And to date, there's no cure. So until there is, we continue to fight with the most powerful tool in our arsenal, love. This is Love conquers all's a real and really positive podcast that takes a deep dive into everything, Alzheimer's, The Good, The Bad and everything in between. And now here are your hosts, Susie singer Carter and me. Don Priess,

Susie Singer Carter: 0:39

hi everybody. I'm Susie singer Carter,

Don Priess: 0:42

and I'm Don Priess, and this is Love conquers alls. Hello Susan.

Unknown: 0:47

Hi Donald. Welcome everybody to another episode of Love conquers alls. We're really happy to have you here, and excited to have you here today, because we have a great topic, because that has to do with not just Alzheimer's because, but it sort of bleeds into our documentary, No Country for Old people, which is out now and and so many people, when it comes to neglect and abuse, want to talk about, well, you know, we have no recourse. What do you do? The law is set up so so again, it's stacked against the victims and their families and and in and it is. That's not gonna lie. It is. And, you know, I don't talk about it a lot, but I did file a suit for my mom. I can't talk about the details, but I can tell you it is a and I did it for the reason of of that, everybody will tell you that's in this industry, memorializing and getting it on record. Because if, if just that, if you don't, you know, if you're like me and you're not litigious, but just to get it on record is so important in, you know, and, and it was stressed to me from our CO producer, Rick muncastle, who's the former federal prosecutor, who said, Susie, you have to do this. It's, it's because I was like, I'm not litigious. I don't want to do this. And he said, but you have to. It's the, it's the right thing to do, is to get them on record, at least, at the very least so and you know, which is something I want to talk about with our guest today, who's actually an elder care attorney. And I just think it's such an important topic, so I'm excited to have them, and I know how hard it was personally, just even even procuring a an attorney who will take your care your case, because it is, like Don said, it's stacked up against us, and for all the reasons that we talk about in the documentary and that we've talked about on the show, it is, you know, it is, it is heavily weighted for the industry and the protection of the industry, and not on the most vulnerable and our loved ones and the elderly. So which is what we're trying to do, educate everybody with No Country for Old people, get them and so you don't get you know, I know I say this all the time, but don't get Sucker Punched like I did because it's awful to be in crisis and try to make smart decisions, and I made a lot of mistakes, so trying to help mitigate those mistakes with you out there, if you haven't gone through this yet, or if you're going through it now, yeah, it's it all this information is even it's not it's not pretty, and it's not what we wanted. It's not it's not a sitcom, and it's not any of that stuff. But, you know, it's stuff we need to look at so that when you're in that situation, it's not devastating. It shouldn't be devastating. It's it's part of life. It's the circle. It's gonna

Don Priess: 4:03

be hard, but, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's gonna be hard no matter what, but it's, it is, as Susie said, it's shockingly devastating when a you'd have no idea what's going on, when you're just walking through this forest of you know, where am I, and things are jumping out at you, and you have no idea how to react to them, on top of just the emotion of what's just what is happening to your loved one, it's, it's a perfect storm of hell. Mitigate, if you can mitigate some of that, it'll make it a lot better. And that's, you know, that's the goal.

Susie Singer Carter: 4:40

Yeah, yeah. Because I do think that this is a hot topic, and so I'm really glad that we got to have this guest normally, we kibbits and make things really fun and light. But I'm fired up today, Don

Don Priess: 4:55

I'm gonna even say, damn it. See, that's how fired up I am. I just said,

Unknown: 5:00

damn it. God, God, I know. I'm gonna say son of a bitch. There, I did it. Oh, my God. I know, son of a bitch. No. I mean, honestly, I'm very fired up about this topic. And I you know, we've had, we've been lucky, because we've got to work with very closely for the past three years. Our co producer, Rick montcastle, who's former federal prosecutor, who prosecuted nursing homes for two decades, never saw any change, retired three years ago, and I met him and said, Let's do a documentary on this, because things need to change. And boy, they really do. And but in that but until everything changes, we need to take our power, whatever it is, and, you know, whatever we can do to hold everybody accountable, that's what we should do. That's the right thing to do. It is and because I was like, I'm done. I don't want to do this. I I'm I mean, I wanted to do the documentary, but as I knew the terror, I knew, I knew the terrain, but legal, I'm not a litigious person, and I didn't want to venture into that. It just seemed very daunting, and it can be, but honestly, it wasn't as daunting as I thought it was going to be, because it feels like the people that are the the the attorneys and their firms that are in this particular specialty of law have so much empathy. They have to, because of the way it's set up, and because they do it everything on spec and pro bono, they have to take cases that are very strong, but they are. They wouldn't go into this field if they didn't have empathy, because it is not fun,

Don Priess: 6:46

and it's a roll of the dice for them, complete roll of the ice. It's, it's not like, you know, it's not like a slip and fall and, oh, okay, we know. We can go in there and say this, and we get this. It's not, it's so complicated. It's

Susie Singer Carter: 6:59

very complicated, yeah, and that's why we have our guest today. Don Yeah, do you want to do it? Do a fantastic, wonderful introduction, like you always

Don Priess: 7:09

Donald, why not? Why wouldn't I want to do that? So do. I'll do that right now. Anthony land zone is the founding partner of land zone, Morgan LLP, a firm built on courage, compassion and justice. Earning his Juris Doctor from Western State College of Law, Anthony went on to complete advanced training in dispute resolution at Pepperdine University's renowned Strauss Institute. He's an active member of the Consumer Attorneys of California and the American Association for Justice, driven by a lifelong passion to stand up for injustice. Anthony has dedicated his career to advocating for the rights and dignity of vulnerable individuals in nursing home and elder abuse cases and holding powerful institutions accountable. We are honored that he is joining us today. So let's say hello to Anthony lenzone, hello.

Anthony Lanzone: 8:01

How are you today?

Susie Singer Carter: 8:02

We're good, Anthony, you are one of those amazing people that that is representing vulnerable people, elderly people and vulnerable not just elderly who have bad experiences, egregious experiences in long term care, which is what our documentary, No Country for Old people, is about, because I've been through it. I've also been through the legal journey in this arena, and it isn't easy. And so we're really excited to talk to you about this. So I just want to know a little bit about your background. Tell the audience what your background is and how you came to this, this this focus on the elderly and the vulnerable in long term care.

Anthony Lanzone: 8:45

Yeah, so I went to law school because I knew I wanted to represent victims. I knew I wanted to represent vulnerable people that have difficulty finding representation. And and when I went to law school, I was fortunate to work during the day and go to school at night, and I worked at a firm that did a lot of different plaintiffs work, representing victims of all different types of cases. And somehow I discovered elder abuse, neglect. At the time, it wasn't something that a whole lot of people were aware of, that there's this whole body of law in California that tries to protect elderly folks. And I was back in 2021, or, sorry, 2001 when I discovered all that stuff, and I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a couple cases, and just kind of really enjoyed the area of law, because I felt like I was representing the most vulnerable people in California at the time, and I've been doing it since 2000 And one and we continue to do it today. And you know, my law firm has been fortunate enough to be part of some really seminal cases in California that I think have really made a positive impact for elderly folks.

Susie Singer Carter: 10:14

Thank you. Thank you for doing that. I mean it. These kinds of cases are, are are classically, classically known to be so challenging, right? I mean, they are they. There's so many barriers it put in, put in front of the consumer and the family members for to protect their loved ones and and what makes it so challenging? Like, why is it so hell Why is it so hella challenging? Why is it so hard to take these people to task when they do something so horribly?

Anthony Lanzone: 10:54

That's a good question. Part of it is just the law itself. For example, if you get in a car accident, somebody made a mistake. They weren't intentionally trying to do something. You get an fender bender, and it's not the law is written in a way where you're not going to punish people for mistakes that they make. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody's human in elder abuse neglect cases, you're actually alleging that you didn't just make a mistake. You were consciously disregarding an expected outcome, where, if you don't take care of an elderly person, make sure they get food, make sure they get water, make sure they get turned repositioned, just the basic custodial care needs that we all take for granted because we're capable of doing those things ourselves. That's what makes it difficult, because the law has a higher burden of proof, and you have a lot more hurdles to overcome. In addition to that, when you accuse somebody of those types of things, you can imagine they're going to fight like hell. And so when you Sue, I mean, we primarily do, I call institutional neglect cases, a lot of long term care type of facilities. And so they're well financed, and they're going to find the best lawyers they can, and they're going to fight like hell, and that's what makes these types of cases really, really difficult.

Don Priess: 12:29

And don't the laws, especially here in California, really, you know, make it more difficult, not for a consumer, to even find a lawyer to take a case, because they have the limits. They have such low limits that a lawyer who's going to be working on a, you know, 30% or 40% or whatever, yeah, what are they going to be doing? They'll look at a case and go, Well, you know, I have all these burdens of proof, and it's, I don't know if it's gonna be worth it to for my firm to even take this case, because the limits are so low. And I know that varies from state to state. But has that been Is that a challenge, not only for you as a lawyer, but for the consumer, to find a lawyer who will take a case?

Anthony Lanzone: 13:08

It's a huge challenge, but for people like me, most of our clients, if not all of them, would not have access to the courts. So all of the so we're we have to take these cases on a contingency basis, otherwise the plaintiff won't be able to do them. And you're right. Don a lot of lawyers aren't willing to do that. These cases are really expensive to litigate, and I'm not talking about attorney's fees. I'm talking about depositions, filing fees, discovery is just crazy.

Susie Singer Carter: 13:45

Expert witness, expert witnesses at all that, all that stuff.

Anthony Lanzone: 13:49

It's not uncommon to spend 200 $300,000 on a case, and you got to win, otherwise you don't even get that back, let alone get paid for your time, let alone the clients. And so you're right to find a lawyer to do these types of cases is really, really difficult for the consumer. And more importantly is, over the years, elder abuse has become a very I guess it's a lot more popular because a lot of people have a lot more awareness. There's a lot more advertising these days. Plaintiffs lawyers are going crazy with the advertising. And so a lot of lawyers say, Hey, I'm going to get into elder abuse. It looks like a great way to make a living, not realizing, oh my God, what did I get myself into? This is way over the top. And so consumer, because not only do you have to find a lawyer, you have to find one that that that knows the lay of the land, that can actually hold the wrongdoers accountable. So it's really tricky for the consumer these days, and then you've got all these layers that the nursing homes put in front of the consumer. Are arbitration agreements, you know, contracts that are 100 pages long, where they don't even realize that there's there, that they're giving up rights. You know, another point that I'd like to make is, is, a lot of the cases that I deal with, they all stem from the fact that the first time anybody has a run in with a nursing home, some tragic event happened, right? Susie knows what I'm talking about. She experienced it with her mom, but no one's thinking about, Oh my gosh, Mom's going to get Alzheimer's. Mom's going to have to go to a nursing home. And all these life traumatic life events are happening and unfolding and and you're in acute care hospital, and some nurse comes up to you and says, We're discharging your mom in 12 hours. You need to find a nursing home for him. So all these traumatic things are going on as you're making these enormous decisions and entrusting somebody you don't know with your with your loved one, and so that puts the consumer at a disadvantage. Again.

Susie Singer Carter: 16:11

It's an unbalanced advantage that they have over us, because we're in a crisis, and that's the worst time to make decisions. And we are. We are desperate for answers, and they aren't there. And the ones that are there are generally, if you're in a bad place, it's gonna it's bad all around, like it's spoiled all around. So the information you're getting is not correct, even though you know in your gut that it is right, like you're saying something is not right here. This is not the way that you treat human beings. This can't be right. But they're saying, No, this is the way it is. This is the way it is. And, you know, this is just the way it is, and you have to

Don Priess: 16:53

accept them. If you don't like it, you

Anthony Lanzone: 16:55

can take them elsewhere. And a lot of it's driven to, I mean, that's a great point. The way it is, right, you go to an acute care hospital, they say you need to go to a nursing home. You need rehab. Well, nursing home is not rehab. A nursing home is 23 hours of convalescing, and if you're lucky, maybe an hour of rehab. So,

Susie Singer Carter: 17:21

you know, yeah, if you're lucky, yeah?

Anthony Lanzone: 17:24

Like the health insurance is set up to pay the benefit of the rehab. It's all part of a system, you know, healthcare system that's really broken. Yeah, I think we all know that, but the consumer doesn't. They're they're not aware of these things before it all like it's always, here's the traumatic event. You're in the system, and that's and that's the end of it. And so that really subjects these folks to all the problems that you see and that you guys talk about, that you bring to the open for the public. It's a great service. You guys are,

Unknown: 17:56

well, thank you. I mean, I would like to maybe jump to because we do talk about the systemic crisis. We talk about it ad nauseum. It's in our documentary. We know, I think my audience knows why, how we get here, but how, and you know, I can talk about my experience with an attorney and the reason why I did it, just so you know, Anthony, is that my our other co producer is a former federal prosecutor, Rick montcastle, who prosecuted nursing homes for, you know, federally for over two decades and never saw any change. And he also, you know, he had very famous cases against pharmaceutical which is not much different. And you know, we also have, as you know, a very powerful nursing home lobby that makes it difficult and has created a very huge barrier for for the for us, for for the public. Because, in a way, we're not the we're really not the consumer the government is when you're on Medicare and Medicaid, so they're answering to them and not to us, and that's why they can say, we'll just find another place if you're not happy, because they'll find someone else and they'll get paid. But so when what? How does somebody in California? And hope you know, and some of this will apply, obviously, across the country, it is state by state, but we're very close with canner, which is the California Attorneys for long you know, great. Yeah, they're amazing. They're the ones that found me, the lawyer that I had, and the reason why I did, oh, let me I was digress, the reason why I got, why I did it, why I filed a case, which I can't talk about because we had ended up settling, but we Rick said, if you don't file a case, then it goes then it goes unknown, it you need to get it memorialized, at least do that. And I wasn't doing it for money or anything. I was doing it for. To do what Rick said, I've never filed a lawsuit ever. So I did, and like Don said, I was turned down by four lawyers here in Los Angeles, and the fourth one said, I'll give you a gift. I'm going to tell you why we can't. Most of these people won't do it is because the place that your mom was at is beloved. No one's gonna touch it and that. And somehow I found canner, and canner, I let them know, I sent him my case, like wrote it up, and they said, Well, we'll find you somebody. We've got you somebody. I said, how everyone's turned me down? They said, Who? And I gave them the names. And they said, Well, they're not on our list. They can't be that good. Yeah. But what is the, what is the process like? What? What would you recommend to someone who says, I know that my my father was, was, you know, died prematurely, based, you know, as a result of bad care at this said facility, what do you recommend? And a lot of people are so burnt out they don't even want to deal with it. They're just like, Oh, it's over. Let me get away from this awful world. What do you recommend?

Anthony Lanzone: 21:12

Well, what somebody, when I stumble across somebody that you just that you just described. I i always tell them that if you don't do something, you're going to be thinking about the rest of your life. I should have done this. I should have done that. It doesn't hurt to look into it. Does it? Does your case rise to the level of something that's actionable? You don't know until you look into it. And so I always tell people when they when I talk to them about exactly what you're saying is just give me the burden to look into it and don't worry about it. Let us analyze the case. Let's figure it out. And if there's, you know, a way to hold people to account through the law, then we can do that. And so that's what I tell everybody. And you're right, Susie, that you know, when you talk about elder abuse and health care and Alzheimer's, all this stuff in the big like, I'm at the end of the spectrum of that. I don't have any expertise on what the best things are for people to mention the elderly, I'm at the very, very end of that. So by by the time people get to me, the only thing I can do is file a lawsuit. But here's the thing, if you don't do that, if you have a viable case, and you don't do that, then you're not holding people to account. And by not holding people to account, you're encouraging the conduct to continue. And so perfect, you know, is it going to change what happened? No. Does one case change the world? No, but cumulatively, it has to. And I've seen changes in the industry over 20 plus years. And you know, just making them more aware, I think, has been a positive thing. And people have a lot of good outcomes in in long term care, a lot of people do. The problem is when you have people who are really sick that need more than rehab, and they continue to decline, I just don't think a lot of the facilities are set up their algorithm. They're like their algorithm in terms of caring for folks. It just doesn't work for people like that and like I think that's where the major change needs to be, and I don't know how that is, because I'm not a practitioner in terms of medicine and things like that. I don't operate the nursing homes, but I can tell you when there's a problem, when something should have happened that didn't happen

Susie Singer Carter: 23:47

exactly, and I think that once they get to you, and yet you're right. You are the last stop. You are the buck stops with you, because you are. You get all the awful, hellish things that you know you're like you, you get to see the results of bad conduct, of the egregious behavior, egregious businesses that are not doing what they promised to do. So that's what you get. That's what your expertise is, and, and, and it's, it's an expertise like you said, that we need, because we need to hold them accountable. Because if all of us, even if we're burnt out and just done and we are so sad and so grieve, you know, Grievous we we want to it's something, it's I why I did my documentary. I felt if I didn't share what I knew, then I'm culpable. I'm allowing it to go under the radar again and again and again. So that's why I did the documentary, because I thought I have to share what I've learned. And so if people go to someone like you, and you're firm and maybe you can't do a trial, maybe there's not enough to do it. But. At least you can file a complaint. At least you Is that correct? Yeah.

Anthony Lanzone: 25:05

I mean, my goal at the end of the day is to give people peace of mind, yes. So let me look at the case. Is there? Should we make a complaint to the Department of Public Health? Should we make a complaint to the medical board? Should we file a civil lawsuit, there's not enough evidence to file a lawsuit. There's not enough evidence to file the complaint, at least the person gets peace of mind is really, I love that, like at the end of the day, that's the service that we provide as lawyers in general. You know, you want to give your clients at least that you know, and if there's something to be done about it and hold people account, then we have the ability to do that.

Susie Singer Carter: 25:44

I have a personal question for you. You know, having been an active advocate for this in since I've started in three years ago, and I I received so many emails and letters and people telling me their stories, and they're so heartbreaking, all of them, right? And, and they, they resonate deeply. And, and you seem just like such an empathetic human being. Obviously, you know, this is not the kind of law that you go into to become, you know, a bazillionaire, I don't think, I mean, I'm sure you do very well, but I'm just saying it's, this is a difficult this. This is very difficult what you do. And you're also dealing with people every single time that have a bad, such a horrible, bad ending. And how does that affect you? Because for me, it's a lot, and I encourage you, like, I want to hear people's stories. But for you, how does it? How do you handle that?

Anthony Lanzone: 26:47

Well, there's enough pain and grief going around the case as it is, like, I don't need to be, you know, get involved in that. That's not why they're there. They're actually hiring us to try to help with the pain and grief. And so I always tell my clients like, you know, number one, it's not lost on me how odd This is that you're entrusting this personal matter with a stranger that you don't know. And number two, whatever that burden that you're carrying. You know, the guilt, the uncertainty, the worry. Just take that off your back and just put it on our shoulders and let us deal with it, and let us counsel you and see what we can do to try to rectify the wrong. And that seems to give people a good sense of relief. And you know, it's not lost to me how horrible these situations are. And I think you're right. Suzy like, You got to kind of have like, even when we hire people like, we don't just hire anybody like you really have to have that empathy for people, because if you don't, you're not going to be very successful in this type of case. It's just too there's too much emotion and grief. And I think that that really helps us, and my whole team really, we all have it, and I think that makes a big difference for the cases and the client. I mean, some of the great like, it's rare for a lawyer to get a thank you from a client, and some of the thank you cards we've gotten, it's just people come up high. It's been very rewarding for

Susie Singer Carter: 28:39

sure. Yeah, I can imagine. I can imagine. So if you I mean, obviously we're not going to get into the weeds of how a case could move forward, but is it safe to say that so many of these cases settle before you get into court? Because I know a lot of people say it's not about the money like me. I want I just want justice to be done. I want it to be exposed. I want people to know what happened. I want to have my day in court. But it's hard to get your day in court because most of these organizations, these facilities, these institutions, are backed, like you said, by a lot of finance. They have insurance companies, and they do whatever they can to stay out of court. Is that correct?

Anthony Lanzone: 29:29

Yes and no, okay, I will say yes. The vast majority of cases settle, and the primary reason why they do is, generally speaking, in every case, there's always facts that support your position. There's always facts that don't support your position. There's a lot of factors that go into it, the jurisdiction that you're in, the judge that you have, there's so much risk and trial and uncertainty in trial for both sides that you know it's. It's risky, and so that's why a lot of cases settle. And I do think the judicial system is set up for that, because most people think that a trial is the end of the case. The trial is like the middle of a case. The trial will go on and on, and this dispute is going to go on and on and on until the parties take matters into their own hands and resolve a case. I tried a case back in how long was 22,010 or 12 years ago, and we got a verdict on part of the case, and then the rest of the case was dismissed, and we had to go through two separate appellate courts, the Supreme Court of California, and 12 years later, they were going to let us try the second part of the case, and then finally resolved after 12 years. And when you have a family going through grief and all this, I mean, you want to drag that out for 12 years, you know, you know, you probably don't want to do that, but we do try cases. A lot of cases do get tried. We got a verdict a couple months ago, a verdict last year. There's probably two or three cases that get tried in our law firm a year. And you know, it's risky business for victims.

Susie Singer Carter: 31:20

And can you talk? So go

Don Priess: 31:21

on. Oh, no, I was gonna just say because, and it's touching about something I said before, is that the in, especially in California, the limits, the fact that, you know, the that they basically, there's so little penalty relative to winning a case, to that because their their insurance is just going to pay for it. It's it's their cost of business. It's in their line items, in their budgets. It's not that big a deal for them, because the limits are so low. How can somebody do a slip and fall and get $10 million if somebody who dies of wrongful death or abuse? You know, it's capped, I think in California, like a million or seven? No, it's 500,000 right? Yeah, it's so low. And I assume that that's because the nursing home lobby is so powerful that it keeps those limits low. How does that make any sense? And are we ever going to see that change? Because to me, it makes no sense. Well, there

Anthony Lanzone: 32:18

are caps on certain types of cases when it when it relates to elder abuse and neglect, it all stems around a health care provider. So if you sue a health care provider for negligence, they're entitled to those cap protections. In California, several years ago, there was a agreement made that got passed in the legislature, where those caps are increasing incrementally over a 10 year period. So that's been positive for the consumer, and that also gives more attorneys the opportunity to make it more palatable to take on these types of cases. So that's been positive, but it's not as easy as odd. The insurance is going to pay for it. It's not going to make a difference. A lot of these large corporations are self insured now, and they operate on credit lines. And, you know, there's been verdicts, and these verdicts really, really have an impact on their business. And so, yes, a lot of the cases get settled, but I think a lot of the trial work that gets done, those are important, because it sets the tone for the entire industry, and it also pushes people to to settle, especially the defendants. They don't want to be victimized by a $10 million you know, even if there's caps, they could be exposed to punitives, and they're exposed to attorney's fees and costs, potentially. And so we're still talking millions and millions of dollars of exposure per case. And so again, they settle because of, you know, there's facts that are good for for one side, and there's facts uncertainty of the juries. You just don't know. For example, I always you know if you had, if, if your case was, I represent the plaintiff, and I want to convince the jury that baseball is the best sport in the world. If I had 12 people on the jury that played baseball, I'd probably do pretty well on that case. But if I had 12 people that never been to a baseball game, I probably wouldn't do very well in that case. That's a stripped down version of how risky jury trials are.

Susie Singer Carter: 34:39

Can you tell the difference? Because this was something that you know, Don just brought it up about the difference between punitive damages and and then the cap of just, what does the cap relate to in terms of why? What does that cap relate to in terms of the the, is it

Don Priess: 34:57

wrong for death? Is it just neglecting a. Yeah, what

Unknown: 35:00

is and then, what are punitive damages? So we know the difference, and then, and how are they assessed? And I know that one of the issues is that the value of someone's life is based on how much income and how valuable they are to society. So when you have someone that does doesn't have an income, so you can't, there's no income to lose when you're on Medicaid, right? And so that is, that is factored into it, correct? Yeah.

Anthony Lanzone: 35:27

So if, if somebody passes away, and if they make $30,000 a year and they're 30 years old, that loss income, that lost future income is something that's recoverable as damages because they died. Obviously, the vast majority of our cases, they're retired, they don't work, and they passed away. So there's really not that lost wage element that you're talking about. Again, the caps are only applicable to cases of negligence against health care providers. Skilled nursing facilities are health care providers. So you have that element where, if you just prove negligence, the caps apply if you prove elder abuse neglect, certain claims aren't capped, and other cap and other claims are so it's kind of complex to get

Susie Singer Carter: 36:28

in. It is complex. I know you have a hard out in six minutes, and I wanted, I just wanted you to talk about, can you Okay, okay, good. Because, because there's something else that I just learned by going through this case that that is a be in my bonnet, because it is the thing. It is the it's about the CMS. So if you settle your case, or you go, or you go to trial, whatever CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid come in and go, Oh, thank you for going to court and just and revealing all this fraud. Now we get to have our percentage and and to me, that's like we are, that we are the wolf in sheep's clothing. We did. We didn't overdo any oversight. We didn't enforce our regulations that are there and yet. Thank you. We wouldn't have looked at it at all, but you brought it to light. Give us some money, and they take money, and it

Don Priess: 37:21

comes out of your pocket, not out of the facility that caused all of this. It doesn't come out of them in addition to the settlement, it comes out of your settlement.

Susie Singer Carter: 37:31

And with all due respect, Anthony, doesn't come out of the cut of the lawyer either. It comes out of the plaintiff's cut.

Anthony Lanzone: 37:39

Correct, correct. So don't let me forget to address your question about the punitive damages, because I didn't

Susie Singer Carter: 37:47

okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Anthony Lanzone: 37:53

However strongly you feel about this, Susie, I think feel about the same about this. It's okay. So generally speaking, in an elder abuse and about case, Medicare, by statute, has an automatic lien. They're saying, Okay, well, somebody has a bed sore. They weren't supposed to get that and we had to expend a bunch of money to help, you know, cure that ailment, that that we wouldn't have had to spend that money but for the negligence or neglect of the defendant. So we have somebody designated it in our office that we have to pay a salary, employment, taxes, benefits and everything to make sure that the federal government gets their money back. And they are painfully difficult to deal with, and the system that's in place to make sure they get paid is a disaster. They'll tell you, you know, hey, we spent $700,000 on this, and then six months later they'll say, Well, we made a mistake. It was really$100,000 and so whatever you have to repay Medicare or CMS, that's part of the damage calculation. So if we were to go to trial on a case, we would have a witness come in and say, I got this letter from Medicare, and they're claiming that we owe them $250,000 or whatever it is, and then the jury would be able to determine that as a damage so that it hopefully wouldn't come out of their, their their, you know, the compensation that they're for their injury. And that would be something that would be separate. But when we're talking about settling the cases, which the majority of the ones we do, that is calculated as part, as as, as part of the deal, so that the plaintiff knows, you know, they're going to have to pay this too, in addition to whatever compensation for for the plaintiff is going to be but it is an imperfect system. It's unfair, in my opinion, because when Medicare was. Created and legislated and operated. It was never contemplated that that would have to be something that would have to be paid back, but that's the way it is now. And I I wish it was helping Medicare and CMS with their finances, but it doesn't seem to be doing very much. So it seems pretty unfair to me too negotiable.

Don Priess: 40:24

It's yeah, and it's negotiable. So it's like, Wait, it either is a cost or it isn't the cost what they negotiate. So like random,

Susie Singer Carter: 40:32

it just seems nefarious at best. And the fact that you know that they can come in and yeah, like you said, and then negotiate on it. It just kind of like taints the whole concept of it and why they should be paying a lot, if anything, it should be the opposite, like we should get the plaintiff should get a settlement from from the from the the perpetrator, I'm not a lawyer, and then also from CMS for not doing their job. But no, we're rewarding them for not doing their job.

Anthony Lanzone: 41:06

Yeah, it's that gut feeling that you're talking about. I have it right now because we're talking about it just makes me say to my stomach, at least. I mean, if, if a, if a, if a victim of elder abuse and neglect, wants to hold someone to account, they have to do all the legwork and go to court and find a lawyer and take all the risk and do all this stuff. I don't see why Medicare can't have their lawyer go into court when there's an elder abuse case, if they want to stake a claim to a lien and litigate their own case and present. Thank you. Thank

Don Priess: 41:43

you. Because there's so there's so many that they're not enough lawyers to be hired by CMS. There'd be so many cases. It would be, you know, they'd need an army of a million lawyers.

Susie Singer Carter: 41:55

There's the same lawyers now, I think they would just have to go they, you know, they should be punished for it, and then, you know, and if they have to go, let them find a lawyer, just like anybody else does, a claimant does, it's on them. It's incumbent on them to take care of their own business, not on somebody's family who's already gone through tragedy and now has to, like, it's like pouring salt in the wound, if you ask me, I don't disagree, right? Anthony, okay, so before you have to go, I want you to describe, to explain what punitive damages, and then we have to have you back on again for part two, because there's just too much to talk about.

Anthony Lanzone: 42:32

I'd love to do that. Okay, so punitive damages, those are damages that come at the very end of the trial, and if you prove in your case in chief that the acts of the defendants were fraudulent, malicious or oppressive, the jury can can decide if they say yes, that those that conduct was then you have the opportunity To put your proven damage case on and all Peter damages are, they're very simple. How much money is it going to cost to punish this particular defendant for the conduct? And again, the hope is to put such a damage on them that will really motivate them to change their conduct. And so all the punitive damages are are based on is essentially, you get to put your case on, this is their net worth. This is all their income. These are all their assets. You know, this is all their debt. And then the jury can decide, you know, somebody has a million dollars, is it a cost $1,000 to punish this person? If somebody has a billion dollars, you know, isn't it cost a million dollars? A million Yeah, and the jury gets to, gets to determine that,

Susie Singer Carter: 43:54

Anthony, how is there not any? How is it not? Why is there just, naturally, just punitive damages, because it how is it not like, you know, done it with, with, without, not militia,

Don Priess: 44:09

if there's a case, if there's a case, if there's neglect and abuse, how is that not automatically punitive? Yeah, I don't get it.

Anthony Lanzone: 44:16

Well, the law is written in a way to be balanced and for it to be fair. And so just because we accuse somebody of abuse and neglect, they have the opportunity to defend themselves. And so I agree with you, if you go to trial and you prove elder abuse neglect, most of the time, you're going to go to go to the punitive damage phase, and the jury is going to get to decide how much to punish those folks. But as we said, most of the cases resolve, and so you factor in based on, you know, trials that have happened, based on other cases, and you evaluate those risks and benefits. I tell you, I. Again, to exemplify the riskiness of jury trials and punitive damage and all that stuff. You know, when I was a young lawyer getting a lot of opportunities to try cases, you know, I won my first case, big punitive damage verdict. Won my second case, punitive damage verdict, and I got an ego about it, and it's very easy to fall into that trap, just the feeling of being able to convince somebody of malice, oppression, fraud and they potentially hurt this person and all that stuff, and plus the rewards you get from representing the vulnerable person. Then I had a few cases that I went to trial on and I lost, and I reflected back on that thinking, you know, I wasn't thinking straight. I was riding the ego train. I felt like I could do anything. I convinced anybody of anything, and I was a little irrational about examining and weighing the evidence and the risks and the benefits, and I felt bad. I think I drove some of those clients to trial when the probably their best interest was not to relive that and probably to resolve the case. And so it's just Risky Business all the way around. It's, it's the best system I know of, and I'm happy with it, and I think it, you know, I wish we did more on the front end of elder care and all this stuff so we didn't have so much to do, and we didn't have to be talking about jury trials and all that stuff. I don't know what the solutions are over there, but I know that there's some solutions to be had. And so, you know, I don't know this is where we're at, and

Unknown: 46:41

all this is where we're at. I know, and you're right about these, these, you know, when you go to trial, they can last so long. And we interviewed a registered nurse that we shielded in our documentary, because she was a whistleblower who went through a 12 year trial that was so harrowing and so awful that by the time it got to the end, and by the way, there was like a $300 million judgment against this, you know, franchise, and they just basically made a deal with the judge and got it down to, like a couple million and then, and then filed for bankruptcy and an opened and with another, under another corporate, you know, entity. So those things happen. And she was,

Anthony Lanzone: 47:28

Love to talk about that...that's a whole other session

Susie Singer Carter: 47:32

for sure, for sure. So there is that stuff that, wow, this it, yeah, right. We need a whole nother session with you. So, you know, we'll have to, we have to. Thank you so much. I know you have to go. And we had a little bit of a late technical start. So come everybody who's listening, come back. We're going to have a part two, and maybe we'll get some questions. If you have questions, send them to us, you know, you know, we you have all our stuff in the show notes, and we'll also have all of Anthony his firm and ways to contact him. And I think you gave such great advice, like, let you decide. Like, give your case, don't don't feel defeated. At least give your case a chance, so that you know that you've done all that you can. Because this is an emotional part of law. It's very emotional and and I think it's beautiful that you said you want to at least mitigate some of that guilt, some of that feeling that you could have, or should have, or would have, you know, done something right?

Anthony Lanzone: 48:38

Yes, i i I apologize for whatever part I played and the technical difficulties. No worries.

Don Priess: 48:50

We find you innocent. Yeah, we find you innocent of that.

Susie Singer Carter: 48:54

Here comes CMS,

Anthony Lanzone: 48:56

because there's so much I would love to come back. You guys won't want me to. There's so much Absolutely, but thank you for all the work you guys are doing. I love that you're getting the word out there, because awareness has a positive impact, and hopefully people can be prepared for nursing homes and long term care and Alzheimer's and all that stuff a lot better than they were before you guys were out there. So

Susie Singer Carter: 49:21

absolutely, thank you so much, and thank you for everything you're doing, because it's you're doing such an amazing you're

Don Priess: 49:29

you're making a difference,

Susie Singer Carter: 49:31

yeah. So thank you very, very much that

Anthony Lanzone: 49:33

guys. Thanks so much for having me on Okay? Take care, right? Take care, guys, bye, bye.