State high court hands victory to nursing homes for damages in neglect lawsuit

In a legal victory for nursing homes, the state Supreme Court on Monday slashed the damages award to the daughter of a man, now deceased, whom a jury found had suffered 382 violations of a key provision of the Health and Safety Code due to poor treatment received while at a facility in Hemet.

Justice Ming W. Chin, writing for a 5-2 majority, concluded an amended provision of the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973 only allows current or former patients to recover $500 per lawsuit, and not $500 for the number of violations cited in the complaint.

The decision reversed a ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal and trimmed what had been a $195,500 award to $100,250. It also is likely to reduce the $368,755 of attorney fees which had been awarded but will be reconsidered when the case is remanded, according to Barry S. Landsberg, a Los Angeles-based partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP who represented the skilled nursing facility.

Several cases concerning lawsuits against nursing facilities have made their way to state appeals courts but none had been considered by the California Supreme Court. The lawsuit drew a number of amicus briefs.

Chin wrote the portion of the statute, Section 1430(b), added in 1982, "was not intended to be the exclusive or primary enforcement mechanism for residents of long-term care facilities seeking compensation for harms suffered in those facilities."

He said it was an additional remedy, which included the prospect of injunctive relief and attorney fees, that was not intended to calculate each violation and attribute damages to it. A Riverside County Superior Court jury found 382 violations against John "Jack" Jarman and awarded $250 in damages for each of them. Jarman v. HCR ManorCare Inc., 2020 DJDAR 8895 (Ca. Sup. Ct., filed April 24, 2017).

In a pointed dissent, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar disagreed with Chin about the meaning of the bill's legislative history.

"This history underscores why the purpose of the bill is most sensibly understood to be primarily the protection of nursing home residents' rights with the goal of deterring violations of those rights and providing recourse where violations occur," Cuellar wrote. "A per violation cap is thoroughly in line with this purpose.

"Contrastingly, under a per lawsuit cap, the additional pressure to stop violating rights that a facility faces from statutory penalties once it has violated one right is effectively zero," he added. "A facility will face the same potential liability whether it violates one right or one hundred."

Jarman, who was 91 at the time, spent three months at an HRC ManorCare facility in 2008 after fracturing his left hip when he slipped and fell while climbing out of a swimming pool.

His attorneys accused facility staff of neglect. Jarman sued for violations of the Patients Bill of Rights under the Health ans Safety Code section, for elder abuse and neglect, and negligence. His daughter, Janice, took over as the plaintiff after her father's death.

The jury found against the skilled nursing facility on negligence and Jarman's attorney, Jay-Allen Eisen, associated with Downey Brand LLP, sought punitive damages on the basis of the 382 Health and Safety Code violations. HCR ManorCare Inc. did not appeal the $100,000 negligence verdict but did challenge the $95,500 damages award based on the language of the statute.

In a telephone interview, Landsberg said Section 1430(b) has "meaningful remedies" but is not intended for juries to add up all of the violations and multiply by as much as $500 each.

"We're pleased the Supreme Court got it right and interpreted the resident rights statute as it was drafted and intended," Landsberg added.

Eisen said in a phone interview that nursing homes hit with complaints could have an easy out as a result of Monday's ruling. "The financial officer would write a check for $500," he said. "That's the net effect of today's decision."

Cuellar, whose dissent was joined by Justice Goodwin H. Liu, voiced concern that nursing homes that mistreat patients would quickly settle cases for a pittance to avoid attorney fees, getting around the point of the legislation.

Chin, for his part, said the Legislature has kept the law the same for 40 years and can "make any necessary adjustments or clarifications as it sees fit."