ShareThis Page
State aims to freeze assets of nursing home operator |

State aims to freeze assets of nursing home operator

| Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:00 a.m

The state attorney general is trying to freeze the assets of the former Robinson nursing home operated by Martha F. Bell and the three nonprofit corporations she controlled.

Attorney General Tom Corbett said Wednesday that he has filed a lawsuit and preliminary injunction in Allegheny County Orphan’s Court to freeze the assets of the former Ronald Reagan Atrium I Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and the nursing home’s owner, the Alzheimer’s Disease Alliance of Western Pennsylvania.

Corbett also is taking the action against the Alzheimer’s Disease Foundation and Geriatric Healthcare Associates Inc., and the officers of the organizations: Bell, 59, of West Mifflin; her husband, Charles C. Bell; and Warren Mason.

The attorney general also wants to revoke the articles of incorporation of Atrium and the three nonprofits, and to require their officers to provide a full accounting of all charitable assets.

Martha Bell, who established the nursing home and ran it for most of the 10 years it existed, and Atrium are awaiting sentencing in U.S. District Court for their convictions on charges of health-care fraud and falsifying records.

State criminal charges are pending against Bell, including neglect of a care-dependent person and theft.

Bell is seeking a new federal trial because of what her attorney calls new evidence in the case.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.