The National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) has received a demand from Shlomo Rechnitz, the billionaire CEO of Brius Healthcare, to “immediately retract” a recent report on Brius’ insider transactions. The union, which represents caregivers at two Brius nursing homes in California, told Rechnitz it stands by its report.
On August 29, 2017, Brius attorney Patricia Glaser sent a two-page letter to NUHW (see below) stating, “We write on behalf of Shlomo Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare to demand an immediate retraction of the ‘report’ entitled ‘Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions: How California’s Largest Nursing Home Chain Funnels Millions to Insider Companies.’”
Glaser is a partner at Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen Shapiro LLP, a Los Angeles-based firm that represents large global corporations and high-profile entertainers. One of the firm’s partners, Robert Shapiro, represented O.J. Simpson during his murder trial.
Glaser’s letter claims that NUHW’s report “contains many false and defamatory statements portraying Mr. Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare in a false light and causing them great harm.” However, Glaser’s letter fails to identify the false statements, instead claiming the report “is so riddled with false and misleading statements as to make it impractical to identify each and every wrongful and damaging statement.” Glaser’s letter goes on to claim that NUHW’s report has “caused damage to Mr. Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare in the many millions of dollars.”
In response to Glaser’s letter, NUHW’s attorneys delivered a three-page letter (see below) describing the report as “fair, accurate, and in support of the Union’s rights of public participation…”
Additionally, the letter states: “Your correspondence is vague and ambiguous, and does not identify the sentences or facts you assert to be false and defamatory. Thus, if you wish to make a demand for retraction of any statement contained in the Union’s labor communication, please do so by specifically identifying the statement, and provide us with any information you would like us to consider regarding each statement.”
To date, Brius’ attorneys have not responded to the letter, which was delivered several weeks ago.
In their letter, NUHW’s attorneys note that the union recently filed a federal charge against Brius alleging that a company official illegally demanded that the union take down its watchdog website, www.BriusWatch.org, as a condition of settling a collective bargaining agreement for approximately 200 Brius caregivers represented by NUHW.
According to the attorneys’ letter, NUHW is concerned that Brius’ demand to retract the report, which is posted on BriusWatch, “appears to seek a result that Brius representatives know cannot lawfully be demanded through collective bargaining.”
In response to Glaser’s letter, NUHW added one sentence to its report – “Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions” – citing additional evidence in support of its findings, including the role of Rechnitz’s wife as a joint owner of one of Shlomo Rechnitz’s middleman landlord firms. Furthermore, NUHW has added a note at the end of the report regarding these facts.
Published in August 2017, “Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions” documents how Brius nursing homes purchased $67 million in goods and services from more than 65 companies controlled by Rechnitz and his relatives in 2015. In some cases, these insider-owned supply firms appear to have charged inflated prices that presumably leave nursing homes with fewer funds to care for residents.
For example, public records indicate that many Brius homes appear to have paid inflated rents to landlords and middleman firms controlled by Rechnitz, his relatives and allies. NUHW’s analysis of government data covering more than 600 California nursing homes indicates that Brius facilities paid rental rates that were 36.6 percent higher, on average, than its counterparts in the same counties during 2015.
A page on BriusWatch.org allows readers to review hundreds of pages of source documents cited in the report.
Brius has been cited repeatedly by government investigators for under-staffing and under-resourcing its facilities as well as delivering substandard care to its elderly, disabled and frail residents. In 2016, the California Department of Public Health refused to allow Brius to take over five nursing homes, citing the fact that it had been cited for 386 serious patient care violations during the previous three years.
In June of 2017, California’s Joint Legislative Oversight Committee unanimously approved a state audit of Brius and its related-party transactions. The results of the audit are expected to be released sometime during 2018.
NUHW Responds to Shlomo Rechnitz’ Demand to Retract Report on Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions
The National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) has received a demand from Shlomo Rechnitz, the billionaire CEO of Brius Healthcare, to “immediately retract” a recent report on Brius’ insider transactions. The union, which represents caregivers at two Brius nursing homes in California, told Rechnitz it stands by its report.
On August 29, 2017, Brius attorney Patricia Glaser sent a two-page letter to NUHW (see below) stating, “We write on behalf of Shlomo Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare to demand an immediate retraction of the ‘report’ entitled ‘Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions: How California’s Largest Nursing Home Chain Funnels Millions to Insider Companies.’”
Glaser is a partner at Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen Shapiro LLP, a Los Angeles-based firm that represents large global corporations and high-profile entertainers. One of the firm’s partners, Robert Shapiro, represented O.J. Simpson during his murder trial.
Glaser’s letter claims that NUHW’s report “contains many false and defamatory statements portraying Mr. Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare in a false light and causing them great harm.” However, Glaser’s letter fails to identify the false statements, instead claiming the report “is so riddled with false and misleading statements as to make it impractical to identify each and every wrongful and damaging statement.” Glaser’s letter goes on to claim that NUHW’s report has “caused damage to Mr. Rechnitz and Brius Healthcare in the many millions of dollars.”
In response to Glaser’s letter, NUHW’s attorneys delivered a three-page letter (see below) describing the report as “fair, accurate, and in support of the Union’s rights of public participation…”
Additionally, the letter states: “Your correspondence is vague and ambiguous, and does not identify the sentences or facts you assert to be false and defamatory. Thus, if you wish to make a demand for retraction of any statement contained in the Union’s labor communication, please do so by specifically identifying the statement, and provide us with any information you would like us to consider regarding each statement.”
To date, Brius’ attorneys have not responded to the letter, which was delivered several weeks ago.
In their letter, NUHW’s attorneys note that the union recently filed a federal charge against Brius alleging that a company official illegally demanded that the union take down its watchdog website, www.BriusWatch.org, as a condition of settling a collective bargaining agreement for approximately 200 Brius caregivers represented by NUHW.
According to the attorneys’ letter, NUHW is concerned that Brius’ demand to retract the report, which is posted on BriusWatch, “appears to seek a result that Brius representatives know cannot lawfully be demanded through collective bargaining.”
In response to Glaser’s letter, NUHW added one sentence to its report – “Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions” – citing additional evidence in support of its findings, including the role of Rechnitz’s wife as a joint owner of one of Shlomo Rechnitz’s middleman landlord firms. Furthermore, NUHW has added a note at the end of the report regarding these facts.
Published in August 2017, “Brius Healthcare’s Insider Transactions” documents how Brius nursing homes purchased $67 million in goods and services from more than 65 companies controlled by Rechnitz and his relatives in 2015. In some cases, these insider-owned supply firms appear to have charged inflated prices that presumably leave nursing homes with fewer funds to care for residents.
For example, public records indicate that many Brius homes appear to have paid inflated rents to landlords and middleman firms controlled by Rechnitz, his relatives and allies. NUHW’s analysis of government data covering more than 600 California nursing homes indicates that Brius facilities paid rental rates that were 36.6 percent higher, on average, than its counterparts in the same counties during 2015.
A page on BriusWatch.org allows readers to review hundreds of pages of source documents cited in the report.
Brius has been cited repeatedly by government investigators for under-staffing and under-resourcing its facilities as well as delivering substandard care to its elderly, disabled and frail residents. In 2016, the California Department of Public Health refused to allow Brius to take over five nursing homes, citing the fact that it had been cited for 386 serious patient care violations during the previous three years.
In June of 2017, California’s Joint Legislative Oversight Committee unanimously approved a state audit of Brius and its related-party transactions. The results of the audit are expected to be released sometime during 2018.