eNotes: Liability – July 2023 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

FEDERAL CASE SUMMARY

Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski
United States Supreme Court
No. 21-806, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2421

Decided: June 8, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court holds the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (“FNHRA”) supports a private right of action for individuals pursuant to § 1983 of the U.S. Code against state and county nursing homes.

Background

In 2016, Gorgi Talevski’s dementia progressed to a point that he required assistance and could not care for himself. His family placed him in Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation Nursing Home. After admission, his condition continued to deteriorate. He was unable to feed himself. The facility asserted that Mr. Talevski was harassing residents and staff. His family became concerned that the facility was chemically restraining Mr. Talevski. The facility also tried to force his permanent transfer to a dementia facility. The family filed a formal Complaint with the Indiana State Department of Health regarding the use of chemical restraints. A Complaint was also filed with regard to the forced transfer. Eventually, an Administrative Law Judge nullified the company’s attempted transfer of Mr. Talevski. The family attempted to have Mr. Talevski returned to the facility, but the facility ignored the Judge’s decision and refused readmission. Mr. Talevski then acclimated to his new home and the family abandoned the efforts for him to return to the original facility.

In 2019, Mr. Talevski sued Defendants under Indiana Statute and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit alleged that Defendants’ treatment of Mr. Talevski, in particular the use of chemical restraints, had violated rights guaranteed him as a nursing home resident by FNHRA. The U. S. District Court granted Defendants’ subsequent Motion to dismiss the Complaint reasoning that no plaintiff could enforce the provision of FNHRA via § 1983.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. The Circuit Court concluded that the FNHRA unambiguously conferred individually enforceable rights to nursing home residents making those rights presumptively enforceable via § 1983. Defendants filed a Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.

Holding

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 Opinion, Justice Jackson writing for the majority, held that the FNHRA provisions at issue unambiguously created § 1983 enforceable rights. The Supreme Court discerned no incompatibility between private enforcement under § 1983 and the remedial scheme that Congress devised.

The Supreme Court held federal statutes have the potential to create § 1983 enforceable rights, but they do not do so as a matter of course. For Spending Clause legislation in particular, the Court recognized that “the typical remedy for state non-compliance with federally imposed conditioned is not a private cause of action for non-compliance but rather action by the federal government to terminate state funds to the state.” In order to create a private cause of action, it must be determined whether Congress intended to create a federal right for the identified class, not merely that the plaintiffs fall within the general zone of interest that a statute is intended to protect. In applying the “Gonzaga test,” the Supreme Court determined that the unnecessary restraint and pre-discharge notice provisions used clear “rights-creating language” and speak in terms of the persons benefited and have an unmistakable focus on the benefited class. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that these FNHRA provisions were sufficient to create a private right of action pursuant to § 1983. As this Supreme Court holding recognizes a private right of action under FNHRA pursuant to § 1983, it may expose locally owned nursing homes to new liability.

Questions about this case can be directed to Hugh O’Neill at (717) 255-7629 or honeill@tthlaw.com.