Press "Enter" to skip to content

Former Employee: Bosworth Cheated Me, Said Food Stamps Fine

Rep. Rev. Steve Hickey (R-9/Sioux Falls) has issued a press release that includes a letter from LeAnn Batiz, nurse practitioner and former employee of Meaningful Medicine, the clinic run by illegitimate U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth.

In this letter, Batiz says that Bosworth promised to pay her $80,000 a year for her services. On this promise, Batiz moved her family from Pierre to Sioux Falls and went to work for Meaningful Medicine in late June 2013. After a month, Bosworth began reneging on Batiz's paycheck. Batiz says she begged Bosworth to pay what she had promised. Batiz's paycheck was so far in arrears that she had to apply for food stamps to feed herself and her two kids at home.

And how did Bosworth, publicly known for declaring that food stamps are an evil program that fosters dependency on government, respond when Batiz told Bosworth her plight and asked for her promised paycheck? Says Batiz:

“That's ok, I understand, we're all in the same boat; I haven't taken a paycheck from Meaningful Medicine yet either. That's what it's there for LeAnn, to help people eat when they can't afford to eat” [attributed to Annette Bosworth by LeAnn Batiz, letter to Rep. Steve Hickey, 2014.05.04].

Batiz says she left Meaningful Medicine in November 2013.

Batiz and Hickey both say much more in this press release. But this one quote, giving Bosworth's real view of food stamps as a way to subsidize her cheating of her own employees, profoundly damns the claims Bosworth has made to being a true conservative seeking honest conversation about public assistance.

7 Comments

  1. Nick Nemec 2014.05.05

    Where is the State of South Dakota? I've always been told the State takes a very dim view of employers who fail to pay their employees. Do these employees have contracts or other documentation that they were employees? Has the employer made the required Federal payroll tax deposits? There are certain laws you can't just ignore, even in South Dakota.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.05

    Federal payroll tax—there's an angle I hadn't considered, Nick! If an employer doesn't cut a scheduled check, is the employer still responsible for paying the payroll taxes on that check?

  3. John Tsitrian 2014.05.05

    Based on my experience, if the nurse was a "contract" worker, Bosworth has to pass a test that includes proving that the nurse also "contracted" out for the same work with other firms, and is indeed exempt from SD U.I.C. deposits based on what the nurse was paid. That test would also exempt Bosworth from withholding payroll taxes (FICA and Medicare), but Bosworth would have to provide the nurse with a Form 1099 showing how much the nurse was paid and provide a copy of the form to IRS. From what I read, it looks to me like the nurse was an employee, not a contract worker. I would expect SD's Unemployment Insurance Division to take a look at this at some point, if they already haven't. I can tell you that those folks are thorough, competent, and demanding of complete documentation when scrutinizing employee records.

  4. Nick Nemec 2014.05.05

    No, but the employer needs to make the required payments on all paychecks issued. The IRS takes a very dim view of failure to remit required payments. There are also very specific rules for in-kind and other alternative wage payment schemes. A business really needs an enrolled CPA with a good understanding of business taxes and Federal tax rulings before they go down the road to alternative wage payments. I doubt the Bosworth-Habers would bother with such due diligence. The IRS is accustomed to shaky businesses failing to remit payroll tax payments. The end result isn't pretty, it might take time for them to catch up with you, but they eventually will, you can't just toss the notices they send in the trash and expect no one will notice.

    That clinic on the beach in Haiti is looking better everyday.

  5. Nick Nemec 2014.05.05

    The "no" in my prior post was in response to Cory's question to me not an attempt to disagree to John or any other poster.

    There is a difference between a "contract worker" and an employee with a contract. The first commonly known as an "independent contractor" is paid on a job basis, an example might be the carpenter you hire to build your deck the second is just a regular employee who signed a contract or employee agreement prior to starting the job. This is another area where the IRS takes a dim view of abuses and comes down hard on those abuses. Again an enrolled agent well versed on tax law and tax rulings is an invaluable asset for reputable businesses.

  6. Bob Klein 2014.05.05

    If there was a contract for services, and the employer never paid the employee, I doubt that tax liability exists. If on the other hand, the employer wrote some sort of a compensation check to the employee, it surely does.

  7. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.05.05

    I have come to believe that there is no limit to their bizarreness. I work pretty hard to understand what might be going on in an individual's head. It adds to understanding and even changing my mind. Some refuse to talk about it. I am certain that there nothing the BosHabs could add to their already terribly muddled record that would clear up a damn thing.

Comments are closed.