Facts

Norman Cox, 88, suffered from Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s dementia. He had been a “no code” status for three years. On June 30, 2005, he was found on the floor near his bed at the residential care facility where he lived. The relative of another resident discovered him and alerted staff members. The staff members cleaned and bandaged Cox’s lacerations, and placed him back in his bed. His wife was informed of the incident and spoke to the decedent that same night and found him to be at his baseline status. The following day, a visiting nurse from an independent agency who found him to be at his baseline status and showing no signs of head injury examined Cox. Cox’s physician was also notified of the incident and gave instructions to simply observe him. On July 5, the same visiting nurse found Cox to be less responsive and instructed the facility staff to notify his physician who instructed the facility to have him taken to the hospital. He was found to have subdural hematoma. His wife and sons chose not to intervene surgically because of Cox’s pre-existing debilitated state. He died five days later in hospice care. Cox’s wife and one son sued the residential facility for negligence and fraud. The other son, a dentist, refused to participate in the lawsuit.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendant had failed to provide adequate supervision of the decedent, failed to meet the requisite standard of care, and violated the Elder Abuse Act. They asserted that the defendant had failed to obtain medical care, call 911 or recognize the signs and symptoms of a head injury during the five days following his fall. They argued that the defendant’s negligence was tantamount to fraud because the level of care provided to the decedent was inconsistent with the level of care that had been promised upon the decedent’s admission to the facility.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that it met the requisite standard of care throughout its supervision of the decedent. The decedent showed no signs of closed head injury until the morning of July 5, 2005. It argued that the decedent’s life expectancy prior to the injury was brief, given his advanced age, and dementia, and that even had the decedent been taken to the hospital on the day of the injury, the treatment and outcome would have been the same.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for the pain and suffering sustained by the decedent, wrongful death damages, and loss of society damages.

Result

The plaintiffs demanded $1 million. After mediation before Charles Hawkins, the parties settled for $300,000.