BILL ANALYSIS S.B. 913 By: Lucio (Naishtat) May 19, 1995 Committee Report (Unamended) BACKGROUND State employees or recipients of government assistance have legal "whistle blower" protection. If a person reports any inappropriate activities, the person is protected from retaliation by this law. The law does not extend to those who may report such irregularities, but are not on some type of government assistance. In the case of nursing homes, any welfare recipient is protected if the recipient reports abuse. A private pay individual who reports such violations is not protected under this law and may suffer consequences for "whistle blowing." In one case, a constituent from the Rio Grande Valley was expelled from a nursing home. The only other nursing home that accepted him is in San Marcos, 625 miles away from Brownsville. PURPOSE As proposed, S.B. 913 provides protection for private pay individuals who report abuse or neglect in nursing homes or related institutions. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Chapter 242E, Health and Safety Code, by adding Section 242.1335, as follows: Sec. 242.1335. SUIT FOR RETALIATION AGAINST RESIDENT. (a) Prohibits an institution from retaliating or discriminating against a resident if the resident, the resident's guardian, or any other person reports abuse or neglect. (b) Entitles a resident to sue for certain forms of relief, damages, or fees. (c) Requires a resident who seeks relief to report the retaliation within 180 days after the alleged violation occurred or was discovered by the resident. (d) Authorizes a suit to be brought in the district court of the county in which the institution is located or in a Travis County district court. SECTION 2. Emergency clause. Effective date: upon passage. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION Senate Bill 913 was considered by the Committee on Civil Practices in a formal meeting on May 18, 1995. The bill was left pending. The committee considered the bill during a formal meeting on May 19, 1995. The bill was reported favorably, without amendment, with the recommendation that it do pass, be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars by a record vote of six ayes, zero nays, zero pnv and three absents.