Morgan & Morgan's Filing Against Granny Nannies Will Test Florida Employer Liability for Staff's Alleged Actions
At the time of hire, the complaint alleges that home health aide Curtel Hayes had a criminal record of aggravated assault and child neglect.
May 13, 2020 at 02:31 PM
3 minute read
Plaintiff Dorothy Overk, 94 years old, is suing Granny Nannies for failing to perform an appropriate investigation of a caregiver, Curtel Hayes, whom she accused of exploiting her and stealing nearly $140,000 over a two-year span.
Her lawyer, Aaron Garnett, an Orlando attorney with Morgan & Morgan's Business Trial Group, filed the case in the Alachua County Circuit Court on behalf of Overk and her guardian, Mary Yeomans.
"Granny Nannies violated our client's family trust and must be held accountable," Garnett said. "We want to deter this type of conduct in the future to make sure it doesn't happen again to another family."
The complaint quotes from a section of the Granny Nannies website that asks: "How do you recruit and screen your caregivers?" In response, Granny Nannies claimed it looks for and screens certified nursing assistants and home health aides. "All caregivers are thoroughly screened through stringent checks of their credentials, criminal background, work references, and physical condition, they must display the kindness and compassion needed to care for others."
|Read the complaint:
|At the time of hire, the complaint alleges that Hayes had a criminal record of aggravated assault and child neglect. A February 2020 arrest report prepared by the Gainesville Police Department states that Hayes was stopped by an Alachua County Sheriff's Office deputy Feb. 6, driving a Toyota Highlander that the suspect purchased for around $48,000 using one of Overk's checks.
The arrest report states that Hayes faces charges of grand theft of property valued over $100,000 and exploitation of an elderly or disabled adult.
|Background check failure?
Jeffrey H. Traynham, a lawyer for Granny Nannies who will not represent the company in court, appears to place the blame on the state.
"For all caregivers, Granny Nannies does a background check and verifies their eligibility to work in this field through the state of Florida, which makes the determination if they're eligible or ineligible."
According to Traynham, applicants seeking a position as a caregiver are subject to digital fingerprinting that is then vetted through the FBI's national database for verification and background check. Then the company submits the digital fingerprints to the state's Agency for Healthcare Administration. The agency makes a determination of whether an applicant is eligible or ineligible for employment as a caregiver.
"That verification back in 2017," Traynham said, "was verified every quarter and is now a continuous process done by the Agency for Health Care Administration to issue a notification of ineligibility if anything triggers their systems to make someone ineligible."
Harris Solomon, a partner specializing in business litigation and employment law at Brinkley Morgan in Fort Lauderdale who is not involved in the case, says it could be possible for a potential hire to get around a background check.
"Complicated fraud happens all the time in this state just as everywhere else," Solomon said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFreeman Mathis & Gary Taps Orlando for Third New Florida Office This Year
3 minute readFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'No Finer Work': New York City Council Confirms Next Corporation Counsel
- 2Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 3Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 4Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 5CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250