Royal

Connecticut Passes Act Adding Additional Home Health Aide Protections

Oct 04, 2024

Following the death of a visiting nurse in Willimantic, Connecticut in October 2023, measures have been taken to enhance protections of home health aides and visiting nurses. The visiting nurse was tragically killed by a client, with a violent past, that she had no knowledge of. After this tragedy, petitions for additional protections spread through Connecticut resulting in the passing of Public Act No-24-19 which will increase protections for health aides and require agencies to provide workers with detailed client information.


What Employers Are Affected?

Key Takeaways:

Starting on October 1, Home Health Care and Home Health agencies will now be required to collect certain client information including:

  • History of Violence against healthcare workers
  • Domestic abuse
  • Substance abuse
  • Psychiatric history, including details regarding stability of symptoms/diagnoses
  • Any violent acts involving the client
  • Sex offender registry status


Home Health Care and Home Health agencies will also be required to provide information on the service location including:

  • Municipalities crime rate
  • Presence of hazardous materials
  • Presence of firearms and other weapons
  • Any other safety hazards 


Agencies are required to annually review the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) report to collect related data for locations.


Agencies are prohibited from denying services to clients solely based on collected information/clients’ refusal to provide information.


Agencies are required to conduct monthly safety assessments with direct care staff and comply with specific workplace safety-related training requirements. Medicaid reimbursement is conditioned on compliance with training requirements and timely reporting will result in Medicaid rate enhancement.



Agencies will be required, beginning in 2025, to annual report to the Department of Public Health (DPH) on each instance of a client’s verbal abuse that an agency staff member perceives as a threat or danger, physical or sexual abuse, or any other client abuse of staff members.


Next Steps for Employers:

With this new act having taken effect on October 1, 2024, employers should begin to review DESPP reports and should begin to collect required information to provide to staff. They should also start preparing reports for DPH regarding any incidents, as the first annual report will be due on January 1, 2025.


It is extremely important for employers to remain up to date on legislation to ensure compliance and to update existing policies as needed.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

 

Royal Attorneys Represent Defendants in Alleged Theft of $85 Million of Sensitive Business Information

14 Oct, 2024
Attorneys Amy Royal and Trevor Brice represent two Defendants, Prosegur Security USA (“Prosegur”) and its senior vice president Fernando A. Arango (“Arango”) in a lawsuit accusing Arango and Prosegur of violations of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit further accuses Arango of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and violations of trade secrets and unfair practices laws.  A Connecticut federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Prosegur and Arango. The order mandates that Prosegur and Arango refrain from disclosing any confidential information obtained from Arango’s former employer, United Security Inc. (USI). The injunction requires Prosegur to certify that no USI trade secrets are stored on its systems and to preserve evidence related to the alleged misappropriation. USI alleges that Arango downloaded numerous confidential files, including sensitive business information valued at $85 million, before joining Prosegur. Prosegur and Arango deny any wrongdoing, asserting that competitive pricing, not misappropriated information, led to the acquisition of a key USI client. “Defendants were able to offer plaintiff’s client a better price, without the use of knowledge and/or alleged trade secrets, and subsequently garnered their business,” stated Prosegur. Trevor Brice of The Royal Law Firm LLP further added that, “Defendants deny liability as to the claims brought by plaintiff.” An article detailing this court decision was published in Law360, please click this link to read more.

What Employers Should Know About Cannabis and the Workplace

14 Oct, 2024
A Regulatory Minefield
Share by: