Jennifer L Ney D.O. Inc, a Corporation

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders
of this court the document set forth below.

S/ RUSS KENDIG

Russ KHendig
United States Bankruptcy Judge

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHAPTER 7
CASE NO. 11-63563

JUDGE RUSS KENDIG

IN RE:
JENNIFER L. NEY DO INC.,
Debtor.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
(NOT INTENDED FOR
PUBLICATION)

Now before the court is Debtor’s Objection to Patient Care Ombudsman.

The court has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the
general order of reference entered in this district on July 16, 1984. Venue in this district and
division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(b)(2)(A).

This opinion is not intended for publication or citation. The availability of this
opinion, in electronic or printed form, is not the result of a direct submission by the court.

FACTS

On November 14, 2011, the court entered a Notice of Deadline to Object to
Appointment of Patient Care Ombudsman pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 333 and established a
deadline of December 1, 2011 for any party to object to such appointment. On November
15, 2011, Debtor filed an Objection to Patient Care Ombudsman.

In the Objection, Debtor argues that the appointment of a patient care ombudsman
would serve no purpose because the Debtor, as a corporation, had closed its business.
Further, Debtor stated that its principal obtained other employment, its equipment has been
liquidated, and its business premises is in foreclosure.

"Prcrsoann Doc 12 FILED 12/05/11 ENTERED 12/05/11 16:19:33 Page 1 of 3

LAW AND ANALYSIS

11 U.S.C. § 333(a) provides in pertinent part,

[i]f the debtor in a case under chapter 7, 9, or 11 is a health care business, the
court shall order. . . the appointment of an ombudsman to monitor the quality
of patient care and to represent the interests of the patients of the health care
business unless the court finds that the appointment of such ombudsman is
not necessary for the protection of patients under the specific facts of the

case.

To determine whether a patient care ombudsman is necessary under the specific facts
of a case, courts examine nine non-exclusive factors:

1) the cause of the bankruptcy; 2) presence and role of licensing or
supervising entities; 3) debtors past history of patient care; 4) the ability of
the patients to protect their rights; 5) level of dependency of the patients on
the facility; 6) likelihood of tension between the interests of the patients and
the debtor; 7) potential injury to the patients if the debtor drastically reduced
its level of patient care; 8) presence and sufficiency of internal safeguards to
ensure appropriate level of care; and 9) impact of the cost of an ombudsman
on the likelihood of a successful reorganization.

In re Bamberg County Mem’! Hosp., No. 11-03877-jw, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3264, at 6-8
(Bankr. D.S.C. July 19, 2011) (citing In re Valley Health Sys., 381 B.R. 756, 762 (Bankr.
C.D. Cal. 2008); In re Alternate Family Care, 377 B.R. 754, 758 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007)).

The court considered the nine factors with respect to the facts of the instant case and
finds that the facts weigh against the appointment of a patient care ombudsman. First and
foremost, Debtor has closed its business and is no longer providing any health care services
to any patients. Thus, the majority of the factors, specifically those addressing the level of
care to patients and future operations of Debtor, are simply irrelevant because there is no
patient dependency on Debtor’s operations any longer. Further, there has been no indication
to the court that the bankruptcy was caused by any patient issues that would require the
appointment of an ombudsman to protect former patients’ interests. Finally, the cost of a
patient care ombudsman would unnecessarily burden Debtor’s estate and simultaneously

provide little or no benefit to Debtor’s former patients.

Based on the foregoing, this court finds that it is unnecessary to appoint a patient care
ombudsman under the specific facts and circumstances of this case.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court will not appoint a patient care ombudsman pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 333 at this time. On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the
appointment of a patient care ombudsman at any time during the pendency of this case
should the court find a change in circumstances that necessitates an ombudsman to protect
the interests of patients. The court will enter a separate order contemporaneously with this

Memorandum.

11-63563-rk Doc12 FILED 12/05/11 ENTERED 12/05/11 16:19:33 Page 2 of 3

Service List:

Jennifer L Ney D.O. Inc, a Corporation
c/o Jennifer L. Ney D.O.

722 Hawthorn Dr

Dover, OH 44622

Edwin H Breyfogle
108 Third St NE
Massillon, OH 44646

Michael V Demezyk

PO Box 867

12370 Cleveland Ave NW
Uniontown, OH 44685

11-63563-rk Doc12 FILED 12/05/11 ENTERED 12/05/11 16:19:33 Page 3 of 3