Failure to Provide A Nursing Home Resident Medication Leads to Brain Injury and Death – $12 Million Lawsuit Filed

The Lund Report recently reported on the $12 million lawsuit that Ross Law filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court. The lawsuit alleges that severe negligence at a senior living and memory care center, Ackerly at Reed’s Crossing, caused a 71-year-old man to suffer permanent brain damage, which ultimately led to his death. The estate of Larry Pederson is seeking more than $12 million from The Ackerly at Reed’s Crossing and its parent company, Seattle-based Leisure Care.

Pederson moved into The Ackerly on July 2, 2024, with assurances that the facility would manage his complex medication regimen—a critical component of his care. Just three days later, he was found unresponsive and was hospitalized with severe brain damage caused by an apparent seizure. Medical staff found no trace of any of his essential medications in his system, including two powerful anti-seizure drugs: Levetiracetam (Keppra) and Divalproex.

The suit alleges that Pederson never received a single dose of his medications during his first three days at the facility. Even more troubling, staff allegedly failed to perform wellness checks, and no one informed hospital personnel of the missed medications, delaying critical medical care.

Ackerly management reportedly self-disclosed the incident to Oregon’s Adult Protective Services days later, admitting that Pederson’s medications—including Lacosamide and others—were never entered into their medication system. By then, the damage had already been done.

The brain injury Pederson suffered triggered a cascade of devastating effects. The lawsuit describes a heartbreaking decline: physical weakness, cognitive impairment, impaired speech, incontinence, tremors, and a severe loss of independence. He died on February 23, 2025—just eight months after entering the facility.

Portland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross, representing Pederson’s estate. Ross contends that the facility’s failure to administer medication as promised directly led to the seizure that caused Pederson’s irreversible injuries and early death.

This case shines a stark light on the dangers vulnerable seniors face when facilities fail to uphold basic standards of care. When families entrust their loved ones to a memory care facility, especially one offering medication management services, they have every right to expect competence, diligence, and above all, safety. Tragically, Larry Pederson received none of those—and needlessly died as a result..

Ross Law continues to advocate for families who suffer when corporate or governmental systems break down, ensuring all that who are responsible are held accountable. If you know a senior citizen or vulnerable person that has been injured, neglected, physically abused, sexually assaulted, or killed due to the failures of a care facility, memory care facility, residential care facility, then please call 503.224.1658 to speak with Ross Law to discuss your options.

The Dreaded Arbitration Clause- A Brief Explanation

Many of my consumer cases hinge on the dreaded arbitration clause.  Businesses often bury arbitration clauses in fine print, in difficult to understand language, and the business rarely advises a person they can opt out of the arbitration clause.   With that said,  you are probably wondering, what is the big deal with arbitration clauses?   

The big deal:  Arbitration Clauses strip you of your right to a jury of your peers.  Here in Oregon the vast majority of arbitrators are white males who have been practicing law for decades and decades.  Many of the arbitrators do their best to see things from both sides, but they typically are pretty hard on consumers that have signed things like "As-Is" disclosures or other agreements.  They do this because they are seeing things through the eyes of a lawyer and not a typical consumer who might be on the Jury.   Consumers see things from a real world perspective and understand why a consumer may act in a particular manner.  

Another big issue is cost, many times the consumer has to pay the arbitrator thousands of dollars to hear the case.   It doesn't make sense for a consumer to pay the arbitrator $3,000.00 to preside over a dispute over $5,000.00.  Additionally, Arbitration Clauses are often coupled with Attorney Fee clauses that could make the consumer liable for the businesses attorney fees if they lose.  This can be tens of thousands of dollars. 

Consumers are also crippled by arbitration rules of procedure.  Many arbitration services tout themselves as efficient.  What this means is the rules make it difficult for the parties to gather information from each other and third parties.  This typically always hurts the consumer, because the business has all of the records regarding the product and the sale.   In a products liability case or Nursing Home case that requires arbitration the injured person will have little documentary evidence, but the Nursing Home or product manufacturer will likely have documents that support the injured persons case.   

What to do:  First try and locate the arbitration clause.  This could turn into a full time job for some folks, because many expensive products and credit cards usually are accompanied by a arbitration clause. Sometimes they are buried in the Warranty paperwork or Instructions.  If possible opt out of the arbitration clause.  Also, you can draw a line through an arbitration clause.  Most businesses don't know what to do if that is the case.  If it is an on-line agreement your options are limited, but they may be there. 

If you want more information and a recent example, check out CBS's story on Arbitration Clauses and how Samsung is using it to deprive an injured person of compensation for injuries Samsung caused. 

If you have any questions about an arbitration clause call me at 503.224.1658 to discuss your options.  Please remember Ross Law's post is not legal advice and is for informational purposes only.   Also, remember the law is always changing so who knows if Arbitration clauses may be in vogue in the future.