Opinion
21-C-736
02-10-2022
SONYA KNIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT RUDOLPH KNIGHT v. JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE CENTER, L.L.C. D/B/A "JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE CENTER" AND PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. IN RE SONYA KNIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT RUDOLPH KNIGHT
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., DIVISION "P", NUMBER 816-604
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Stephen J. Windhorst
WRIT DENIED
Plaintiff/relator, Sonya Knight, individually and on behalf of her deceased father, Rudolph Knight, seeks this Court's supervisory review of the trial court's November 22, 2021 judgment which sustained defendants, Jefferson Healthcare Center, L.L.C. d/b/a "Jefferson Healthcare Center" and Plantation Management Company, L.L.C.'s, Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action to plaintiff's Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages. For the reasons that follow, we deny this writ application.
On May 13, 2020, Mr. Knight filed a request for a medical review panel alleging malpractice by Jefferson Healthcare Center, L.L.C. d/b/a "Jefferson Healthcare Center" that occurred while he was a resident at their long-term care facility. Mr. Knight died on June 15, 2020. According to the writ application, Ms. Knight was substituted as claimant on June 20, 2020, and on February 11, 2021, the medical review panel issued an opinion. On April 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a petition for damages against both Jefferson Healthcare Center, L.L.C. d/b/a "Jefferson Healthcare Center" and Plantation Management Company, L.L.C. According to the petition, from on or about July 18, 2012 to on or about April 3, 2020, Mr. Knight was a resident of the Jefferson Healthcare facility. Plaintiff alleged claims of negligence, survival action, a Lejeune claim, and loss of chance of survival.
Although the petition for damages states that Mr. Knight entered the facility on or about July, 18, 2002, the writ application reflects in other places that Mr. Knight entered the facility on July 18, 2012.
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp., 556 So.2d 559 (La. 1990).
Pertinent to this writ application, on May 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages and Injunctive Relief. In this supplemental and amending petition, plaintiff brought claims against defendants for alleged violations of the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights ("NHRBR") pursuant to La. R.S. 40:2010.8 and sought to recover a fine of $100 for each violation pursuant to La. R.S. 40:2010.8(D)(1), as well as reasonable attorney's fees. In response, defendants filed a Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and Dilatory Exception of Prematurity to plaintiff's Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages. Regarding the exception of no cause of action, defendants argued that following an amendment to the statute in 2003, the NHRBR no longer provides for a cause of action for damages and only allows for injunctive relief. Defendants argued that in the petition, plaintiff admitted that any action or omission on the part of defendants as to Mr. Knight ceased on April 3, 2020 when he no longer resided at the facility. They argued that plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief for actions that have already occurred and aren't ongoing, and thus, plaintiff did not state a cause of action in the supplemental and amending petition.
Following a hearing on October 19, 2021, the trial court signed a written judgment on November 22, 2021 in which it sustained the peremptory exception of no cause of action. There the trial court stated:
… Since its 2003 amendment, the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights, La. R.S. 40:2010.8, provides an exclusive remedy of injunctive relief, plus attorney fees and costs, but no longer provides a cause of action for damages. See, Butler-Bowie v. Olive Branch Senior Care Center, 52, 520 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 266 So.3d 478 at 484. Any actions or omission on the part of Defendants as to Rudolph Knight ceased at least by April 3, 2020, when Rudolph Knight was no longer in the care of custody of Defendants.
The exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La.1993). No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 931. The exception is triable on the face of the papers and for the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true. Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 349. In reviewing a trial court's ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action, the appellate court should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the lower court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. Id.
This Court recently addressed this issue in Heinrich v. Maison De'Ville Nursing Home of Harvey, LLC, 21-240 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/30/21) (unpublished writ disposition). In that writ disposition, this Court found:
La. R.S. 40:2010.9 provides for civil enforcement of any violation of La. R.S. 40:2010.8 as follows:
Any resident who alleges that his rights, as specified in R.S. 40:2010.8, have been deprived or infringed upon may assert a cause of action for injunctive relief against any nursing home or health care facility responsible for the alleged violation. The action may be brought by the resident or his curator, including a curator ad hoc. The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights or to enjoin any deprivation or infringement on the rights of resident. Any plaintiff who prevails in such action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees, and costs of the action, unless the court finds that the losing plaintiff has acted in bad faith with malicious purpose, and that there was an absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact, in which case the court shall award the prevailing party his reasonable attorney fees.
Prior to its 2003 amendment, La. R.S. 40:2010.9 provided a cause of action for actual monetary damages for violations of the NHRBR. However, since its amendment by 2003 La. Acts No. 506, § 1, La. R.S. 40:2010.9 provides an exclusive remedy of injunctive relief, plus attorney fees and costs. Jurisprudence has reiterated that "there is no longer a cause of action for damages under the NHRBR" since the 2003 amendment. Butler-Bowie v. Olive Branch Senior Care Ctr., 52, 520 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 266 So.3d 478, 484. See also Watson v. Woldenberg Vill., Inc., 16-0159 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/5/16), 203 So.3d 317, 321, writ denied, 16-1964 (La. 12/16/16), 211 So.3d 1168.
By its 2003 amendment to La. R.S. 40:2010.9, the legislature has directly limited claims under the NHRBR to that of injunctive relief and we are constrained by that amendment. Therefore, because we find that a resident's claims under the NHRBR may only be asserted in an effort to enjoin or enforce the rights set forth in La. R.S. 40:2010.8, available to residents within a nursing home, we find that plaintiff in this case-who is no longer a resident of Maison De'Ville-cannot set forth any cause of action for injunctive relief under the NHRBR. See also Campbell v. Nexion Health at Claiborne, Inc., 49, 150 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/1/14), 149 So.3d 436, 440 (holding that a deceased nursing home resident could not seek injunctive relief under the NHRBR). Consequently, we find that the trial court did not err in its judgment sustaining defendants' exception of no cause of action. …(Footnotes omitted.)
In the present writ application, plaintiff argues that well-established jurisprudence confirms that a cause of action under the NHRBR is heritable and enforceable by a resident's successor. In Heinrich, this Court discussed two of the cases plaintiff relies on. Therein, in footnote 4, this Court stated:
In support of its position that a cause of action under the NHRBR is heritable and, thus, applicable to both current and former residents, plaintiff cites the Randall case, which considered, following a jury trial, the issue of whether a deceased resident's child could bring claims, including NHRBR claims, on behalf of his mother. Randall v. Concordia Nursing Home, 07-101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/22/07), 965 So.2d 559, 563, writ denied, 07-2153 (La. 1/7/08), 973 So.2d 726. However, the cause of action in Randall accrued prior to the 2003 amendment ("Plaintiff alleged in his original petition that from January 1996 through August 12, 2003, the date of his mother's death, that his mother, as a resident at Camelot, was maltreated and her rights were violated under the Louisiana NHRBR.") and we thus do not find it instructive in this case. Randall, supra. … Moreover, in Perkins v. BBRC Invs., LLC, 14-0298 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/17/14), 205 So.3d 930, 934, also cited by plaintiff, the appellate court determined, after a jury trial, that the jury failed to make any determination as to the NHBR claims and, thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees and costs available under the statute. We do not find the Perkins case applicable here.
Plaintiff herein also cites to Gibson v. Monroe Manor Nursing Home, 32, 806 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/3/00), 756 So.2d 583, Short v. Plantation Mgmt. Corp., 99-0899 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/27/00), 781 So.2d 46, and Pender v. Natchitoches Par. Hosp., 01-1380 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/15/02), 817 So.2d 1239. However, we do not find these cases applicable since the causes of action in the cases arose prior to the 2003 amendment to the statute.
Upon de novo review and based on the forgoing, we find that plaintiff cannot set forth a cause of action for injunctive relief under the NHRBR, and therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in its judgment sustaining defendants' exception of no cause of action. Accordingly, this writ application is denied.
JGG
FHW
SJW