Barry S. Landsberg

On Aug. 17, Landsberg was waiting at his computer for 10 a.m., the hour at which he hoped the state Supreme Court would post online a landmark win for his nursing home client in a closely-watched case. The justices saw it his way, 5-2, in concluding that a 1982 law lets residents recover only $500 per lawsuit, not $500 for each violation cited in a complaint.

"I can't recall the last time a nursing home prevailed in a case like this," said Landsberg, who practices trial and appellate law as a health care litigator. "It's been at least three decades."

The decision reversed a ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal and slashed a $95,500 award to $250. It will also likely reduce the $368,755 in attorney fees granted the plaintiff's lawyers. That sum will now be reconsidered by the trial court. Jarman v. HCR ManorCare Inc., 2020 DJDAR 8895 (Ca. Sup. Ct., filed April 24, 2017).

The resident rights statute at issue limits recovery but allows for injunctive relief and attorney's fees, Landsberg said. "It's not a personal injury or elder abuse law. It's one small piece of a larger web of statutes devoted to long term care enforcement. There are other laws that deal with negligence." He pointed out that the plaintiff separately recovered $100,000 for negligence, an award that was not appealed.

Plaintiff John "Jack" Jarman was 91 when he spent three months at the Hemet ManorCare facility in 2008 after fracturing his hip. His lawyers accused the home's staff of neglect; his daughter took over as plaintiff after his death.

"It's a significant win. There have been class actions on this theory by nursing home residents. This should end those," Landsberg said. "We were right that the law means it to be $500 for each action. Any change would have to come from the legislature."

Also teed up at the high court is Landsberg's defense of Dignity Health, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that runs the fifth-largest hospital system in the U.S., in a case over what Landsberg called "a raging issue in medical staff law." The question is whether a hearing officer appointed by the hospital to hear a physician's challenge to revocation of his staff privileges was biased due to his prospects for serving again as a hearing officer at the same hospital or at other affiliated hospitals within a hospital system. Natarajan v. Dignity Health, S259364 (Ca. Sup. Ct., petition for rev. filed Dec. 23, 2019).

"Oral argument could be a year away," Landsberg said. "But maybe I'm on a roll. I'm hopefully not obnoxious, but I'm at least a little giddy. I'm enjoying myself."

-- John Roemer