Steve Piskor, the Northeast Ohio son whose hidden camera exposed abuse and helped create Ohio’s Esther’s Law, is sounding the alarm. He says last-minute changes to two bills in the General Assembly could let care providers tighten their grip on in-room cameras and the footage they capture.
His warning comes on the heels of the Ohio Department of Health citing Grande Oaks in Oakwood Village this month for removing a resident’s camera and mishandling recorded files. Families who thought Esther’s Law guaranteed that monitoring tools would stay in their hands now worry the technology could instead be supplied and controlled by the very facilities they are trying to monitor. Piskor is urging lawmakers to slow down and hold more hearings before the bills move any further.
According to News 5 Cleveland, state inspectors found Grande Oaks staff had pulled a resident’s camera over what workers called “non-compliance with policy.” Inspectors reported the facility “provided no documented evidence” to justify the sudden removal. When the device was returned, the family’s SD card containing recordings was missing, inspectors said. The Ohio Department of Health also cited failures to report alleged abuse and to thoroughly investigate, and assessed a $5,000 fine. Grande Oaks did not respond to repeated requests for comment, according to the station.
Esther’s Law itself grew out of footage Piskor captured in 2011 and was signed into law in late 2021. It took effect in 2022, giving nursing home residents or their legal representatives the explicit right to install cameras in private rooms and barring retaliation. The statute requires roommate consent when applicable and limits who can view recordings, typically the resident, their representative, or law enforcement. When the law took effect, KTVU noted that the measure was designed to make abuse harder to hide.
How The Bills Would Change The Law
The Senate’s S.B. 154 would expand Esther’s Law to cover assisted-living and residential care facilities, formally define “electronic monitoring devices,” and cap modest installation and internet-service fees, according to the bill page on the Ohio Legislature website. A companion measure in the House, H.B. 809, introduced by Rep. Melanie Miller, similarly aims to broaden monitoring and address costs. Miller’s office says the draft language was shaped by conversations with providers and the Ohio Health Care Association. The proposals also try to solve practical headaches families have raised, such as upfront installation costs and unreliable connectivity.
Why Advocates Are Alarmed
Piskor and other advocates worry that language in the House proposal could allow providers to offer their own cameras and dictate the terms for using them, which they say would quietly shift control away from residents and families.
The draft text in the Ohio Legislature database for S.B. 154 also includes a provision stating that “the facility is released from liability in any civil or criminal action or administrative proceeding for a violation of the resident's right to privacy in connection with using the device.” Critics point to that clause as especially troubling.
“Whoever owns the camera, owns the footage of it, too,” Piskor told News 5 Cleveland, summing up fears that facility ownership could become a gatekeeper between families and crucial evidence.
Local Context
Those worries are not happening in a vacuum. Federal inspection records compiled by ProPublica and CMS show Grande Oaks has a history of deficiencies and prior enforcement actions, a track record that families point to when they argue that independent monitoring is essential.
Industry groups counter that facility-provided camera systems could fix nagging problems like spotty Wi-Fi and broken devices. Ethicists and elder-care advocates, however, warn that when facilities own the equipment, they also gain leverage over who sees the footage and when, raising fears that recordings could be limited, delayed, or selectively shared. That is the tug-of-war now playing out in committee rooms.
What Families Can Do
For families worried their loved ones could lose access to crucial footage, advocates recommend keeping backup copies of recordings whenever possible, documenting any interference with devices, and promptly reporting suspected tampering.
The Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman can help with complaints and mediation, and the state’s ombudsman brochure lists contact information and regional resources. Families can also file complaints with the Ohio Department of Health so inspectors can review alleged removals, obstruction, or mishandling of recordings.
Lawmakers say they are trying to balance resident rights with rules that facilities can realistically follow, but advocates like Piskor want clearer guardrails before any new language is locked into law. Senator Catherine Ingram, who sponsored S.B. 154, has argued that expanding the statute would bring more transparency to thousands of people in assisted-living settings, while opponents are pushing for additional hearings to sort out control and access to footage.
Committee action in the coming weeks will determine whether these cameras remain tools that families control or gradually become equipment owned and managed by care providers.
