Minnesota Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon And Minnesota Senate Counsel Katie Cavanor Discuss Legislative Intent Of Minnesota Patient Bill Of Rights

JUNE 11, 2010

Minnesota Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon and Minnesota Senate Counsel Katie Cavanor wrote to Dennis Laurion to discuss the legislative intent of the Minnesota Patient Bill of Rights

[This text is copied from Exhibits AA-196, AA-197, and AA-198 of the Minnesota Defamation Lawsuit of David McKee, MD, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Minnesota Sixth Judicial District Case 69DU-CV-10-1706, Filed June 9, 2010.]

Yvonne Prettner Solon
State Senator
State Capitol Room G-9
St. Paul, MN 55155

June 11,2010

Dear Mr. Laurion:

Thank you for contacting me to share your story. I am very concerned about
the manner in which you say your father was treated. I am sorry your 
family had this experience. The Minnesota Patient Bill of Rights was enacted
to "promote the interests and well being of the patients and residents of 
health care facilities." I am very concerned that you are now being sued
for trying to protect the rights of your father.

You had requested that my office send you an interpretation of the 
Minnesota Patient Bill of Rights. Please see the attached document that 
was drafted by Senate Counsel. It highlights some of the provisions that
might pertain to your case and should provide the legislative 
interpretation that you are seeking.

Thank you very much for sharing your story. Please let me know if I can
be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

/s/

Yvonne Prettner Solon
State Senator

To: Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon

From: Katie Cavanor, Senate Counsel

Date: June 10, 2010

This memo is in response to the e-mail that was sent to your office by Mr. Dennis Laurion on May 30, 2010, and the questions posed by Mr. Laurion regarding the Patient Bill of Rights  found in Minnesota Statutes, section 144.651. Mr. Laurion’s father was a patient at St. Luke’s Hospital located in Duluth. While I cannot provide Mr. Laurion with specific legal advice regarding his situation and the appropriateness of the defamation lawsuit that has been brought against Mr. Laurion, I can provide information regarding the Patient Bill of Rights and the avenues provided in the statute to file a complaint if a patient feels that their rights have been violated.

The legislative intent of the Patient Bill of Rights is  to”promote the interests and well being of the patients and residents of health care facilities.” Patients shall at admission be given a written statement that describes the legal rights that are contained  in the Patient Bill of Rights and shall be informed  by the facility that these legal rights are for their protection during their stay at the facility. A guardian or conservator, or in the absence of a guardian or conservator, any interested person may seek enforcement of these rights on behalf of a patient.

There are several rights contained in the Patient Bill of Rightsthat may be at issue under the scenario described in Mr. Laurion’s e-mail. The first and foremost is the right found under section 144.651, subdivision 5, which states that a patient has the right to be treated with courtesy and respect for their individuality by employees of or persons providing service in a health care facility. Other rights contained in the Patient Bill of Rights that might be at issue are found under the following subdivisions of section 144.651:

Subdivision 6 – Appropriate health care. A patient has the right to appropriate medical and personal care based on individual need.

Subdivision 9 – Information about treatment. A patient shall be given by their physicians complete and current information concerning their diagnosis, treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis as required by the physician’s duty to disclose. Patients may be accompanied by a family member or other chosen representative or both.

Subdivision 10 – Participation in planning treatment, notification of family members. A patient has the right to participate in the planning of their health care. This right includes the opportunity to discuss treatment and alternatives with individual caregivers.

Subdivision 15 – Treatment privacy. A patient has the right to respectfullness and privacy as it relates to their medical and personal care program. Examination and treatment are confidential and shall be conducted discreetly. Privacy shall be respected.

Subdivision 18 – Responsive service. A patient has the right to a prompt and reasonable response to their questions and requests.

Subdivision 19 – Personal privacy. A patient has the right to every consideration of their privacy.

Under Subdivision 20, the Patient Bill of Rights specifies that patients shall be encouraged and assited throughout their stay in a facility or their course of treatment, to understand and exercise their rights as patients. Patients may voice grievances and recommend changes in policies and services to facility staff and others of their choice free from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisals. Notice of the grievance procedure of the facility, as well as the address and telephone number of the Office of Health Facility Complaints shall be posted in a conspicuous place.

This requirement is further reiterated under Section 144.652, which states that copies of the Patient Bill of Rights shall be provided to the patient upon admittance to the facility and that the policy statement must include the address and telephone number of the board of Medical Practice and/or the name and telephone number of the person within the facility to whom inquiries about the medical care may be directed. The statement must also include a brief description on how to file a complaint with the Office of Health Facility Complaints regarding a violation of the Patient Bill of Rights.

I would encourage Mr. Laurion to discuss with St. Luke’s Hospital his grievances with the treatment that his father received while a patient at st. Luke’s, and to pursue a formal complaint with the Office of Health Facility Complaints against St. Luke’s if st. Luke’s does not address these grievances to the satisfaction of Mr. Laurion, which is clearly his right under the Patient Bill of Rights and section 144.651.

KC:rer

Click any page to see a larger version.

Letter-2010-06-11-Prettner-To-Laurion-P1Letter-2010-06-11-Prettner-To-Laurion-P2Letter-2010-06-11-Prettner-To-Laurion-P3


Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Web Posting

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply To Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Cease And Desist Letter To Defendant Dennis Laurion

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Complaint To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint To Sixth Judicial District Duluth Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Response To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Answer To Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Deposition Extracts

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances Before Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances After Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony In Response To Questions By Marshall Tanick

Affidavits By Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Parents

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Motion To Oppose Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Memo In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Sixth Judicial District Court’s Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Appeal Of Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Order To Strike Portion Of Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Announces Decision

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Petition For Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Opposition To Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Supreme Court Decision On David McKee MD V. Dennis K. Laurion

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2010

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2011

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2012

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2013

McKee V Laurion Is A Textbook Case

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s