Yarick v. Pacificare - to Save Money, Docs Pressure Surrogates to Stop Life Support

Yesterday, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal published an opinion in Yarick, v. Pacificare of California, No. F057032.  The appellate opinion holds that the plaintiff’s state law claims against a federal Medicare Advantage program were preempted by the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395w-26(b)(3).  But what is even more interesting are the pending claims against the healthcare providers.

In early January of 2006, Mr. Yarick, who “was over 85 years of age,” was admitted to defendant San Joaquin Community Hospital because he had fallen and broken his leg. Mr. Yarick had surgery to repair his broken leg and, three days later, was transferred to Rosewood Health Facility, operated by defendant American Baptist Homes of the West, for rehabilitation and custodial care.

Over the next three weeks, Mr. Yarick's condition deteriorated in various ways. Nevertheless, Rosewood Health Facililty and defendant Bakersfield Family Medical Group, despite the objection of Mr. Yarick's family, discharged Mr. Yarick. When the family arrived to receive Mr. Yarick upon discharge, they found him “slumped in a wheel chair and not responsive.” The family called an ambulance, which transported Mr. Yarick to Mercy Hospital, operated by defendant Catholic Healthcare West.

Mr. Yarick was diagnosed with multiple conditions, including pneumonia and congestive heart failure. Over the next two weeks, according to the complaint, doctors of defendant Bakersfield Family Medical Group first counseled, and then pressured, appellant to terminate efforts at curing Mr. Yarick and to substitute, instead, “comfort” or end-of-life care. Although plaintiff continued to insist on curative care, as a result of the efforts of the various defendants, Mr. Yarick died on February 18, 2006.

The fourth amended complaint alleges that all of the foregoing events happened because of the financial pressures and incentives that arose from the care providers' contracts with respondent. The complaint alleges respondent's contracts with providers offer insufficient payment to permit the providers to make decisions and to provide care based on patients' reasonable medical needs, requiring the providers to substitute a standard of financial expediency. It alleges some of the contracts provide financial incentives for the refusal to provide reasonably necessary medical care. It alleges respondent has failed to implement and utilize necessary quality control mechanisms that would require providers to give good medical care despite the financial incentives not to do so.