Court calls for forward motion, more information on nursing home buyout

Justice Christopher Belezos didn’t belabor his latest decision about the Edgar P. Benjamin Healthcare Center and its almost 15-month-old receivership.

When he appeared in Suffolk County Superior Court for the status conference scheduled regarding the receivership June 24, he didn’t even sit at his bench.

Instead, during the ten-minute conference, he stood, leaning against his chair as he got to the point: Decision time for the Mission Hill nursing home is fast approaching.

“We need to make progress or change directions,” he said.

For the receivership, that means making quick work of seven bids the center received as it seeks an outside buyer to take over the facility. A buyout is the course of action that Roxbury attorney Joseph Feaster, the center’s court-appointed receiver, has said he sees as the best option forward.

In announcing his decision, Belezos said that if a selection of a buyer and clear next steps couldn’t be established by the next status conference, July 31, then it would be time to consider other options. He called that next court date a “decision-making hearing.”

“Unless we have some clear path moving forward, then the inclination of the court is to say it’s time to make some decisions about wrapping this up,” Belezos said. “We need a clear path going forward. We can’t stay in limbo like this forever.”

While he didn’t specify what “wrapping this up,” might entail, in the last status conference, held May 15, he suggested that without a buyer in this round of bids, the center may have to consider transferring out its residents and shutting its doors.

Oren Sellstrom, an attorney with the Lawyers for Civil Rights who is representing the guardians of two residents at the Edgar Benjamin who sued for the receivership in spring 2024, said he is optimistic that, with seven bids, Feaster will be able to select a buyer to take over the facility.

“There are seven potential entities that are interested in taking over ownership and operation of the Benjamin,” Sellstrom said. “That’s a robust field, and I fully expect that one of those will be selected by the receiver and the transfer can take place.”

The April 2024 suit that saw Feaster appointed, came as the center faced a pending closure plan and allegations of financial mismanagement against former administrator Tony Francis, and after the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and Department of Public Health, both of which are able to request a receivership, opted not to.

Both ultimately signed onto the receivership after the suit was filed.

Sellstrom previously, at that May 15 conference, voiced his objections to a closure if there is no buyer in this round.

Though the process has become increasingly contentious, Sellstrom said he thinks the need for forward motion is something everyone involved can agree on.

“It’s time to move to the next chapter for the Benjamin,” Sellstrom said. “I actually think all of the parties and the court are aligned on that.”

In a statement to the Banner, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said that they view steps forward for the facility as a way to ensure residents’ safety, wellbeing and continued access to high-quality care.

“We have pushed for a path forward from the receiver toward a permanent solution that will achieve those goals and are eager to hear more about the potential for a sale,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Feaster has regularly been at odds with representatives from the attorney general’s office and Department of Public Health who have been monitoring events at the facility but don’t officially oversee the receivership.

In a document filed with the court June 10, Feaster announced the seven “viable” proposals to buy the facility, which he said were from a mix of for-profit entities, nonprofit entities and brokers.

In that filing, he said he put together a team to review the proposals through the end of the month and that he “hopes to present his recommendation” to the court by mid-July. During the status conference, he said the team had met twice and had plans to meet again this week.

At the status conference, Belezos said he wants a report from Feaster — filed under seal so as to not disturb the process — about the bids, due by July 14.

That report “doesn’t have to be a novel,” Belezos said, but should identify the prospective buyers, provide rough parameters of what each proposal includes including insights into the proposed timeline for each sale.

Getting more information about the bids and the process was on the wish list of the attorney general’s office and the state Department of Public Health, which have often lodged complaints alleging limited transparency about the operations of the receivership. Since July 2024, the commonwealth has pushed for more reports from Feaster, including regarding how he has been spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars the state has provided the center through MassHealth advances.

The state has cited that number at more than $903,000; Feaster argued that at least $300,000 of that sum was accrued under the center’s previous administration, before the receivership was in place.

Feaster has, in turn, alleged that the commonwealth is giving this receivership disparate treatment, with greater, unwieldy oversight and more rush compared to others in the state.

Two days after Feaster’s June 10 report, the commonwealth filed its own documents with the court in response. In those documents, the state said they viewed the lack of a report about the bid process as a risk to the timely resolution of the Edgar Benjamin’s financial struggles. A budget assembled this spring by Edgar Benjamin Administrator Delicia Mark projected total losses by the facility exceeding $4 million between March and December of this year.

Also in contention by the commonwealth was a proposed extension that Feaster, in his court filings, said was necessary to implement any sale that might come out of the bid process. Feaster initially proposed an extension of 90 days, through Sept. 30.

The commonwealth, in its own filing, voiced opposition to the extension without a more detailed plan in place.

Belezos toed a line between the two camps, extending the receivership for 45 days, through Aug. 14.

That timeline, he said, will give the court a chance to consider the center’s options without being “up against a wall.”

But the message was ultimately clear, that the court says it’s time for something to change.

In his written order Belezos said all parties should come to the July 31 court date “prepared to address the future of the receivership as well as the EPBHC.”

“That is a very important date,” Belezos said in the courtroom. “We need to be moving forward.”