laws and regulations by including prohibited terms in their admission agreements. Plaintiff contends that Defendants, in an effort to seek additional profits, have adopted an admissions policy that discourages admission of Medicaid patients and that Medicaid patients, particularly those without families, are transferred to other homes to make beds available for Medicare or private pay patients. .Supp. 1481, 1498 (D.Minn.1996) (adopting report and recommendation concluding statement that lens maker used the “most advanced equipment available” was puffery). General assertions of quality are also puffery because “quality” is a vague, subjective concept. Am. Italian Pasta Co., 371 F.3d at 393; see also Evanston Hosp. v. Crane, 254 Ill.App.3d 435, 193 Ill.Dec. 870, 627 N.E.2d 29 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 173 F.3d
holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care holding that statements that hospital would provide high quality care to patients were expressions of opinion or puffing holding that statements at issue were protected expressions of opinion because they lacked specificity and precision and the factual implications concerning such statements were unclear holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim