Apparently peeing outdoors is not everyone's cup of tea.

A religious group and several local residents have sued the City and County of San Francisco over the new outdoor urinal in Mission Dolores Park, calling it a “shameful” invasion of privacy and decency.

The San Francisco Chinese Christian Union, along with several neighbors of the park, filed a 25-page civil lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court on Thursday alleging gender and disability discrimination, as well as violations of health and sanitation codes.

The urinal, which city officials call the “pissoir,” opened in January as the city's latest measure to combat public urination. It was part of a major park renovation that included new irrigation systems, playgrounds and restrooms.

The open-air urinal, next to a Muni streetcar stop, consists of a concrete slab with a drain and a circular fence that offers limited privacy. It is located near the southwest corner of the park, affectionately known as the “gay beach.”

The San Francisco Chinese Christian Union, described in the suit as a religious nonprofit organization that includes 15 churches, and other plaintiffs said in their suit that the “sewage hole” forces unsuspecting parkgoers to see strangers' genitals in a public park. It also discriminates against people who need to pee but don't want to do so outdoors, the suit says.

“The outdoor urination hole violates the privacy of those who need to use the restroom but must expose their bodies and endure the shame and humiliation of urinating in public,” the lawsuit states. “Seclusion when defecating is a societal norm and represents one of the most basic expectations of privacy.”

The urinal is also unfair to women, the lawsuit says.

Find more of our top stories on Facebook >>

“The hole provided for outdoor urination is particularly egregious for women and girls,” the lawsuit states. Using this facility would subject women to “extreme embarrassment not experienced by men or boys who merely unzip their pants and pee all over the place.” [sic] when urinating.”

The plaintiffs are represented by the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal group that is pushing to overturn a state law that requires public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and play on sports teams of the gender with which they identify.

“If San Francisco wants to be truly progressive, it needs to have public parks that are accessible to everyone, not just certain groups,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said in an interview. “The city is not above the law. They put the urinal in a place where people will see it, whether they want it or not.”

The office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera issued a cheeky statement in response to the lawsuit on Friday, titled “Isn't That a Urinal?!”, saying Dolores Park is “famous for its counterculture, rampant sunbathing, hash brownies, 'Hunky Jesus' and more.”

“If I had to predict the 100 things in Dolores Park that would likely most offend these plaintiffs, I would not have guessed this would be among them,” Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for Herrera, said in the statement.

The residents of the neighborhood had campaigned for the urinal, the statement said.

The prosecution pointed out in its statement that the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the Pacific Justice Institute as an anti-LGBT hate group.

Dacus rejected the designation, saying it came from a “very far-left extremist organization” and said the city was “desperately trying to distract from the real issues” in the lawsuit.

hailey.branson@latimes.com

Follow me at @haileybranson / Google+

ALSO

3-year-old girl taken to hospital by helicopter after snake bite in Chino Hills

Study shows: Major earthquake in California's Eastern Sierra is overdue

Police Commission finds LAPD's shooting of unarmed man in Los Feliz was justified

The post Spiritual group sues over San Francisco’s open-air urinal appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

DoorDash is facing a lawsuit from San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin for “illegally misclassifying employees as independent contractors,” Boudin tweeted today. In the complaint, Boudin argues that DoorDash misclassified its employees and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices.

“Misclassification of workers results in the deprivation of the employment protections to which they are entitled by depriving workers of, among other things, minimum wage and overtime pay, unemployment insurance and protection from discrimination,” Boudin said in a press release. “[…] Now more than ever, given the COVID pandemic, we need to protect our workers, especially the essential workers who deliver food to us every day.”

In a statement to TechCrunch, DoorDash noted how it has supported its employees during the pandemic by providing them with safety equipment, telemedicine and more.

“Today’s action aims to disrupt Dashers’ essential services, deprive hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, parents, retirees and other Californians of valuable job opportunities, deprive local restaurants of much-needed revenue, and make it harder for consumers to prepare “Food, groceries and other essentials are safe and reliable,” said Max Rettig, global head of public policy at DoorDash, in a statement. “We will fight to continue to offer Dashers the flexible earning opportunities they want during these challenging times.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when gig worker rights groups have called on companies like DoorDash, Uber, Lyft and Instacart to comply with AB 5. AB 5, which went into effect earlier this year, determines what type of workers can and cannot be classified as independent contractors.

The law codifies the ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In this case, the court applied the ABC test and held that Dynamex misclassified its employees as independent contractors.

Under the ABC test, for a hiring company to legally classify a worker as an independent contractor, it must demonstrate that the worker is not subject to the hiring company's control and direction, performs work outside the scope of the company's business, and does so on a regular basis independently founded business or a similar company. In the lawsuit, Boudin describes DoorDash as failing to meet the standards of the ABC test.

“DoorDash’s misclassification of its Dashers was not a mistake, but rather a calculated decision to reduce the cost of doing business at the expense of the workers who provide the company’s core service of delivering goods from merchant to customer,” the lawsuit says Conditions.

The lawsuit seeks to have DoorDash stop classifying its employees as independent contractors and be fined up to $2,500 for each violation and up to $2,500 for each violation involving a senior or disabled person.

DoorDash, Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Instacart are sponsoring a ballot measure aimed at allowing them to classify workers as independent contractors. Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft face a misclassification lawsuit from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

This lawsuit argues that Uber and Lyft deprive workers of the right to minimum wage, overtime, access to paid sick leave, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, seeks a $2,500 penalty for each violation, possibly per driver, under California's unfair competition law and an additional $2,500 for violations involving seniors or people with disabilities.

The post San Francisco DA sues DoorDash for classifying supply employees as impartial contractors appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin today filed an unfair business practices lawsuit against food delivery service DoorDash, which has consistently classified its employees as independent contractors rather than employees, contrary to California law.

“I assure you that this is just the first step of many to fight for worker safety and equal enforcement of the laws,” Boudin said at the virtual press conference today. This lawsuit is being led by Assistant District Attorney Scott Stillman's White Collar Crimes Against Employees Unit – “and I did not bring ADA Stillman into the office to file a single lawsuit,” Boudin continued.

No messages were returned for DoorDash as of press time.

Today's lawsuit was filed at Section 17200 of the State Business and Professions Codewhat applies to ““Any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent commercial act.” Either a prosecutor or a prosecutor can take action under this code – and in fact, in May, Attorney General Dennis Herrera, along with colleagues in Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft for their Employees had allegedly miscategorized.

According to the California Supreme Court decision: “Dynamex” decision of April 2018, a three-point test was established to determine whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors.

No reasonable interpretation of this ruling could result in Doordash workers—or Uber and Lyft drivers, or many others—being classified as anything other than employees.

In April 2019, it was revealed that DoorDash was applying the tips DoorDash had given its employees to their base wages instead of serving as tips – which led to this A complaint is filed against the company with the city's Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement.

In September 2019, the “Dynamex” decision was essentially codified as law under AB5, authored by Rep. Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego).

“When you think of theft, you don’t often think of wage theft,” said Gonzalez, who took part in today’s virtual press conference. “If an employee stole from his boss, he would go to prison. But employers steal from their employees in large quantities every day.”

By misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees, companies can avoid paying the minimum wage, providing mandatory breaks, and providing health care or sick days. Workers in such conditions are subsidized by the social safety net, which in turn is subsidized by taxpayers and law-abiding corporations.

“DoorDash has a long history of being an exploitative employer,” Veena Dubal, a labor law professor at UC Hastings, told Mission Local. “Like Uber, the company’s business model is based on the fiction that its employees are independent contractors. This means that the people whose work led to the company’s sky-high valuation will not have access to a wage floor, workers’ compensation in the event of an injury, or unemployment insurance if they are fired through no fault of their own.”

During the ongoing pandemic, Dubal continued, these workers have continued to be classified as “essential” and have “risked their lives to deliver food from restaurants to families in lockdown.”

“DoorDash has vigorously fought the employment claims of its delivery drivers,” Dubal said. “This lawsuit today – filed by the San Francisco District Attorney – puts the state’s weight behind these allegations.”

DoorDash Complaint by Joe Eskenazi on Scribd

Update, 2:20 p.m.: A statement from Max Rettig, DoorDash Global Head of Public Policy:

More than ever, Californians from all walks of life are looking to DoorDash for flexible earning opportunities, working an average of a few hours per week. Throughout the pandemic, DoorDash has supported Dashers on and off the road with free safety equipment, telemedicine, wage replacement and more. Today's action aims to disrupt Dashers' essential services, deprive hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, parents, retirees and other Californians of valuable job opportunities, deprive local restaurants of much-needed revenue, and make it more difficult for consumers to receive prepared food Store groceries, groceries and other essentials safely and reliably. We will fight to continue to offer Dashers the flexible earning opportunities they want during these challenging times.

If you would like to continue to employ us – and have not already done so – support us now.

The post San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin sues DoorDash for ‘unlawful misclassification’ of employees as unbiased contractors appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

“/>

Photo credit: DoorDash / File Photo

DoorDash is facing a lawsuit from San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin for “illegally misclassifying employees as independent contractors,” Boudin tweeted today. In the complaint, Boudin argues that DoorDash misclassified its employees and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices.

“Misclassification of workers results in the deprivation of the employment protections to which they are entitled by depriving workers of, among other things, minimum wage and overtime pay, unemployment insurance and protection from discrimination,” Boudin said in a press release. “[…] Now more than ever, given the COVID pandemic, we need to protect our workers, especially the essential workers who deliver food to us every day.”

In a statement to TechCrunch, DoorDash noted how it has supported its employees during the pandemic by providing them with safety equipment, telemedicine and more.

“Today’s action aims to disrupt Dashers’ essential services, deprive hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, parents, retirees and other Californians of valuable job opportunities, deprive local restaurants of much-needed revenue, and make it harder for consumers to prepare “Food, groceries and other essentials are safe and reliable,” said Max Rettig, global head of public policy at DoorDash, in a statement. “We will fight to continue to offer Dashers the flexible earning opportunities they want during these challenging times.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when gig worker rights groups have called on companies like DoorDash, Uber, Lyft and Instacart to comply with AB 5. AB 5, which went into effect earlier this year, determines what type of workers can and cannot be classified as independent contractors.

The law codifies the ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In this case, the court applied the ABC test and held that Dynamex misclassified its employees as independent contractors.

Under the ABC test, for a hiring company to legally classify a worker as an independent contractor, it must demonstrate that the worker is not subject to the hiring company's control and direction, performs work outside the scope of the company's business, and does so on a regular basis independently founded business or a similar company. In the lawsuit, Boudin describes DoorDash as failing to meet the standards of the ABC test.

“DoorDash’s misclassification of its Dashers was not a mistake, but rather a calculated decision to reduce the cost of doing business at the expense of the workers who provide the company’s core service of delivering goods from merchant to customer,” the lawsuit says Conditions.

The lawsuit seeks to have DoorDash stop classifying its employees as independent contractors and be fined up to $2,500 for each violation and up to $2,500 for each violation involving a senior or disabled person.

DoorDash, Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Instacart are sponsoring a ballot measure aimed at allowing them to classify workers as independent contractors. Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft face a misclassification lawsuit from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

This lawsuit argues that Uber and Lyft deprive workers of the right to minimum wage, overtime, access to paid sick leave, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, seeks a $2,500 penalty for each violation, possibly per driver, under California's unfair competition law and an additional $2,500 for violations involving seniors or people with disabilities.

The post San Francisco DA sues DoorDash for classifying supply staff as unbiased contractors appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The owners of Oilcan Harry’s, STS Warehouse, LLC, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against their new landlord, claiming they have not been given access to their new location at 219 W. Fourth St. (down the block from their current location) and that an HVAC system has not been installed in the building.

The move precedes a redevelopment of Fourth Street. A residential building will be built at Oilcan Harry’s current location.

Oilcan Harry’s finds temporary space before move into new downtown tower

STS signed its new lease on May 18. In it, the landlord was to install an HVAC system by July 1 and secure a change of use for the property to operate as a bar/nightclub. STS began hiring architects and consultants to design the new space.

However, the move has stalled.

According to the lawsuit, landlord Thomas C. Calhoon refused to give STS access. Allegedly, Calhoon told STS on Oct. 4 He has a pending sale of the land to LV Company, an Austin-based real estate investment firm, and he could not allow STS to do anything without LV’s approval.

In response, STS sent a formal demand letter on Oct. 11.

“Defendant refused to act and told Plaintiff that he will not approve anything requests related to the Lease Property unless David Kanne approves the request on behalf of LV Company,” the lawsuit reads.

LV responded to STS on Oct. 14

“Counsel for LV Company asserted that Plaintiff is required to obtain approval prior to submitting a permit request but did not reference where the obligation in the lease such obligation is,” the lawsuit reads.

KXAN reached out to Calhoon and LV Company for comment. LV responded, but Calhoon has not yet. We will update this story when we hear back.

LV responded with the following statement:

LV Collective does not currently own the space that Oil Can Harry’s occupies and can’t accommodate specific requests. We plan to purchase the property, are excited for the bar to occupy the space and fully intend to honor the lease.

True Point Communications, on behalf of LV Collective

STS had asked LV to meet with counsel on Oct. 14, which LV asked to reschedule to Oct. 25. On Monday, LV allegedly told STS it would need another week to review. Both parties’ legal teams have not yet met.

“Despite several requests, neither Defendant nor LV Company has agreed to provide access to the Leased Property so that Plaintiff can fulfill its obligations under the Lease,” the lawsuit reads.

You can download the full lawsuit below.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County Civil Court, accuses Calhoon of breaching the contract. It asks for the court to compel action and monetary relief of $1,000,000 for lost income and legal fees.

The post Oilcan Harry’s sues new landlord over entry to new location, HVAC set up appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Last week, federal regulators agreed to pause the transfers after several patients died within days or weeks of being moved from the hospital and rehabilitation center but the deadline to shut down the hospital remains.

Speaking at the press conference, Renne urged CMS to “come to your senses.”

“How much longer are we going to keep this up before more deaths occur?” Renne said.

CMS terminated its payments to Laguna Honda in April after two patients had nonfatal overdoses at the facility in 2021, and inspectors with the California Department of Public Health declared it to be “in a state of substandard care.”

The federal agency, which pays for care for the majority of the nursing home’s 700 patients, also ordered the facility to start discharging or transferring its patients ahead of a mid-September mandated closure.

Founded in 1866, the sprawling facility serves people who need long-term care but who can’t afford private nursing homes. Many of the patients have dementia, drug addiction and other complex medical needs.

City officials say patients and their families are the ones suffering the most because of the forced closure. Debra Bauer spoke Thursday about how the facility has helped her son, who has a traumatic brain injury, and has been a resident at the hospital for about 20 years.

“My son feels safe there, I don’t want that taken away from him,” she said. “I don’t want it taken away from him or any of the other residents that I see and we wave to in the hallways.”

The post San Francisco Sues Feds Over Compelled Closure of Laguna Honda Hospital appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — The city of San Francisco announced Thursday that it’s suing the federal government over its decision to cut off funding to Laguna Honda Hospital and the order forcing the nursing home to transfer all patients out of the facility by Sept. 13.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Xavier Becerra. It alleges that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which operates under HHS, forced the City to implement an unworkable closure and patient transfer plan that put them at risk and denies the City due process.

In April, CMS terminated Laguna Honda’s participation in its Medicare/Medicaid programs after the hospital was found out of compliance on multiple safety inspections, including finding contraband like drug paraphernalia on site, and failure to adhere to hand hygiene, documentation and infection prevention protocols.

Laguna Honda Hospital

CBS

As a result of being decertified, the hospital lost federal funding that financed more than two-thirds of its services for nearly 700 patients with complex medical needs and low incomes.

The federal government also directed the facility to wind down its patient population, and the hospital transferred several dozen patients over 10 weeks. At least four patients were reportedly dead within a few days after their relocation, including three that were sent to homeless shelters. A total of nine patients died within days or weeks after transfer or discharge, according to City Attorney David Chiu.

Last week, Laguna Honda maintained transfers for its remaining 600 patients following the deaths.

The complaint alleges the CMS imposed an arbitrary Sept. 13 deadline for patient transfers and required it to close before the city’s appeals could be decided, which might make the transfers unnecessary.

In a press release, Chiu said a second-class-action lawsuit against both the State of California and the federal government filed by former City Attorney Louise Renne alleges the closure and transfer process violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and denies patients and their families due process .

“The federal government has put Laguna Honda and our City in an impossible situation,” said Chiu in a prepared statement. “As the final safety net for many of our most vulnerable San Franciscans, Laguna Honda serves too critical a need to be closed due to an arbitrary, bureaucratic decision. The City has been forced into an unworkable closure and transfer plan that has done far more harm than good.”

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate the Sept. 13 deadline and extend federal funding to Laguna Honda at least until the appeals can be decided and all patients can be safely transferred or discharged.

“We are working hard to address issues that have been raised at Laguna Honda, and that important work will continue,” said Mayor London Breed in a prepared statement. “But closing this facility and forcing residents and families to go through the trauma of transfers should not be part of that process. This facility provides care and support for some of the most vulnerable people in our city, and that support must continue to keep them healthy and safe.”

“For over 150 years, San Franciscans have relied on Laguna Honda to provide critical care to our most vulnerable,” Renne said in a prepared statement. “We simply cannot allow Laguna Honda to close. The actions of CMS and the California Department of Health are illegal, unnecessary, and cruel.

Theresa Rutherford, the President-Elect of the SEIU 1021 and a longtime certified nursing assistant at Laguna Honda Hospital, released the following statement in response to the announcement of the lawsuits:

“Laguna Honda Hospital is more than just a hospital, it is a long-term home for many. Keeping patients at Laguna Honda, where they are provided some of the most unique and comprehensive care available in this country, must be a priority for our community and for elected officials at all levels.We support patients and families who are advocating to help stop the closure because we know it will save lives.

We understand how stressful and scary the last few months have been for workers and patients alike. Transfer trauma is a real danger for the people we care for, which is why our union is doing everything we can to get Laguna Honda Hospital recertified. We encourage community members to join us by contacting their elected leaders at all levels and asking them to stand with us.”

In May, Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter to Becerra asking to reverse the CMS decision to terminate Laguna Honda’s participation in its programs and force the relocation of its vulnerable patients.

“If CMS does not reverse its decision, these patients would again be put at risk as they’re transferred to other facilities,” Feinstein said in a statement last month. “This is particularly concerning after some patients were reportedly sent to homeless shelters ill-equipped to provide the necessary medical services.”

The hospital remains open and licensed as it continues to work on rejoining the federal programs.

The post San Francisco sues federal authorities over Laguna Honda hospital closure following affected person deaths appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — San Francisco officials said Thursday they have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to cut funding to a nursing home run by the city and the tight deadline it set to move all patients out of the facility that state and federal officials deemed was providing “substandard care.”

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the order by the federal government to transfer or discharge all patients out of Laguna Honda Hospital by Sept. 13 has denied the city due process and put patients at risk. He said at least nine patients have died days or weeks after being transferred or discharged and at least three ended up in homeless shelters.

“We’re asking the federal government to exert compassion and common sense,” Chiu said. “Between the huge shortage of skilled nursing facility beds, we see potentially very negative consequences” if the facility closes. “Individuals will become homeless. These people have nowhere to go.”

The city’s lawsuit filed Wednesday against the US Department of Health and Human Services and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra alleges the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, imposed an arbitrary closure, requiring the facility to shut down before San Francisco’s administrative appeals can be decided.

Former City Attorney Louise Renne also filed a class action lawsuit against the state and federal government on behalf of Laguna Honda patients and families.

Last week, federal regulators agreed to pause the transfers after several patients died within days or weeks of being moved from the hospital and rehabilitation center but the deadline to shut down the hospital remains.

CMS terminated its payments to Laguna Honda in April after two patients had nonfatal overdoses at the facility in 2021, and inspectors with the California Department of Public Health declared it to be “in a state of substandard care.”

The federal agency, which pays for care for the majority of the nursing home’s 700 patients, also ordered the facility to start discharging or transferring its patients ahead of a mid-September mandated closure.

Founded in 1866, the sprawling facility serves people who need long-term care but can’t afford private nursing homes. Many of the patients have dementia, drug addiction and other complex medical needs.

The post San Francisco sues feds over pressured nursing residence closure appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — San Francisco officials said Thursday they have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to cut funding to a nursing home run by the city and the tight deadline it set to move all patients out of the facility that state and federal officials deemed was providing “substandard care.”

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the order by the federal government to transfer or discharge all patients out of Laguna Honda Hospital by Sept. 13 has denied the city due process and put patients at risk. He said at least nine patients have died days or weeks after being transferred or discharged and at least three ended up in homeless shelters.

“We’re asking the federal government to exert compassion and common sense,” Chiu said. “Between the huge shortage of skilled nursing facility beds, we see potentially very negative consequences” if the facility closes. “Individuals will become homeless. These people have nowhere to go.”

The city’s lawsuit filed Wednesday against the US Department of Health and Human Services and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra alleges the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, imposed an arbitrary closure, requiring the facility to shut down before San Francisco’s administrative appeals can be decided.

Former City Attorney Louise Renne also filed a class action lawsuit against the state and federal government on behalf of Laguna Honda patients and families.

Last week, federal regulators agreed to pause the transfers after several patients died within days or weeks of being moved from the hospital and rehabilitation center but the deadline to shut down the hospital remains.

CMS terminated its payments to Laguna Honda in April after two patients had nonfatal overdoses at the facility in 2021, and inspectors with the California Department of Public Health declared it to be “in a state of substandard care.”

The federal agency, which pays for care for the majority of the nursing home’s 700 patients, also ordered the facility to start discharging or transferring its patients ahead of a mid-September mandated closure.

Founded in 1866, the sprawling facility serves people who need long-term care but can’t afford private nursing homes. Many of the patients have dementia, drug addiction and other complex medical needs.

The post San Francisco sues feds over compelled nursing dwelling closure appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

San Francisco’s current and former city attorneys filed a pair of lawsuits late Wednesday that they hope will bring a screeching halt to the federal government’s effort to shutter Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center next month.

City Attorney David Chiu is asking a US District Court judge to stop the federal government from cutting off funds to Laguna Honda as of Sept. 13, a deadline the city calls arbitrary and which would force the nursing home to shut down and displace 600 vulnerable residents .

Former City Attorney Louise Renne filed a separate, class-action lawsuit against state and federal officials on behalf of those residents. Most patients at the skilled nursing facility—one of the largest in the US—are medically fragile and often very poor. Some have lived there for decades.

The pending closure has caused an uproar among supporters of the city-run nursing home, especially after the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid forced Laguna Honda to begin transferring its frail patients in May in preparation for the closure. Of the 57 patients transferred or discharged, eight died within days or weeks of their moves.

An empty hallway at Laguna Honda hospital in San Francisco on July 20, 2022. The facility is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to transfer or discharge all patients by mid-September after the federal agency decertified it in April.

Bronte Wittpenn/The Chronicle

Because 14% of the relocated people have died, possibly as a result of the phenomenon known as “transfer trauma,” federal officials agreed last month to pause the transfers.

“Pausing is not enough,” Renne told The Chronicle. “We’re asking them to end the discharge. Period. Families are worried sick. The mere threat of a discharge is wrong.”

In the city’s lawsuit, Chiu argues that the federal agency known as CMS chose a random date — Sept. 13 — to halt funding of more than $200 million a year in the form of Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. The suit says shutting down the nursing home so quickly is illegal because San Francisco is appealing the agency’s decision to decertify Laguna Honda in the first place — and that appeal won’t be heard until at least October.

“We’re asking the federal government to exert compassion and common sense,” Chiu said. “Between the huge shortage of skilled nursing facility beds, we see potentially very negative consequences” if the facility is forced to shut down next month. “Individuals will become homeless. These people have nowhere to go.”

Renne put it more bluntly: “We’ve had eight deaths. Who knows if there would be more? (CMS) knows that as well as we do. How do they live with themselves?”

Chiu’s lawsuit notes that three patients discharged from Laguna Honda wound up in homeless shelters. And last month, when Laguna Honda officials called 1,400 nursing homes in a single week to try to comply with the transfer order, not one of them had a vacant bed eligible for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement and with appropriate services for Laguna Honda’s patients, according to the suit.

“CMS’s unreasonable requirements are not only harmful to patients and impossible to achieve, they are also unlawful,” says the city’s lawsuit. Chiu argues that the agency shouldn’t be allowed to shut down Laguna Honda before the city can make its case that CMS was wrong to crack down so hard on the facility, and that closing it before the appeal is heard denies San Francisco due process.

CMS officials could not immediately be reached for comment after the suits were filed. In an interview on July 26, however, a CMS official speaking on condition of anonymity told The Chronicle that the agency could extend its deadline.

“The timing is something we can revisit,” the official said.

CMS decertified Laguna Honda in April, six months after state inspectors declared it to be “in a state of substandard care.” CMS set Sept. 13 as the date it would stop paying to care for the facility’s hundreds of residents. Laguna Honda depends on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements of nearly $18 million a month, or more than two-thirds of its $26 million monthly budget.

The city’s lawsuit acknowledges that Laguna Honda must fix deficiencies and prevent them from recurring. But it also says the California Public Health Department — which recommended that CMS withdraw the Medicare and Medicaid funding — overstated the severity of the deficiences its inspectors found at Laguna Honda between October and March, and that it never should have made that recommendation.

Renne’s class-action suit, which seeks a trial by jury, makes the same argument. It’s also the basis of Chiu’s appeal.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu speaks at a press conference about abortion rights at City Hall on June 1, 2022.

Constanza Hevia H./Special to The Chronicle

Laguna Honda’s current troubles began in July 2021, after the facility reported that two patients had overdosed on illegal drugs and recovered. That report triggered the state visit in October, after which inspectors found the facility out of compliance.

The city’s lawsuit says the state’s finding was based on a “failure to eliminate all illicit drugs and contraband (such as cigarette lighters),” which in turn led to the recommendation that CMS terminate its contract with Laguna Honda on April 14 if the nursing home was still out of compliance.

Chiu argues that instead of allowing CMS to hastily shut down a vital institution, especially when there are virtually no adequate alternatives for most residents, the courts should give San Francisco time to make its case that decertifying Laguna Honda was done in error.

Laguna Honda is also correcting its deficiencies and should be allowed to complete that process, the lawsuit says. The nursing home “is confident that it will submit an application allowing it to be recertified as a Medicare and Medicaid provider by the end of the year.”

But if it has to shut down, Laguna Honda will need until Nov. 2023 to do so safely, the suit says.

In all, Chiu’s lawsuit paints a picture of a Catch-22 — an “impossible situation” — that CMS has forced on Laguna Honda, the city and the patients who depend on it. “Laguna Honda cannot stay open and it cannot close,” the suit says.

The city attorney said that “the federal government has left us with no choice” but to sue. “We’re hoping that CMS will come to the table and work with us to preserve this critical safety net.”

Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: nasimov@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @NanetteAsimov

The post San Francisco sues federal authorities over Laguna Honda closure appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.