Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 2, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The case involves Marvin Glen Gibson and others (plaintiffs-appellants) appealing against Monroe Manor Nursing Home (defendant-appellee) regarding whether the private right of action granted to nursing home residents under Louisiana statutes La. R.S. 40:2010.8 and 2010.9 is strictly personal, limited to residents or their curators. Clara Gertrude Gibson's heirs filed a petition for damages against the nursing home for alleged abuse of their mother, but the nursing home filed an exception of no right of action, arguing that the claims under La. R.S. 40:2010.9 were not heritable.
In January 1999, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss claims for their own emotional distress but reserved rights under the Patients Bill of Rights Law. The trial court ultimately granted the nursing home's exception, ruling that the rights under the nursing home residents' bill of rights are personal and cannot be asserted by heirs, interpreting the statute as intentionally limiting the right of action to the resident or their curator. The court indicated that extending this right to heirs would exceed legislative intent. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Legislative intent behind La. R.S. 40:2010.6 emphasizes the need to protect nursing home residents from isolation, ensuring they live in the least restrictive environment to maintain their individuality and dignity. The statutes establish a "bill of rights" for these residents and outline mechanisms for enforcement, allowing sponsors to act on behalf of residents to uphold their rights. Residents are entitled to a copy of their rights upon admission to a nursing home. Violations of these rights can result in action by the Department of Health and Hospitals and provide residents with a private right of action to seek damages and attorney's fees against the responsible facility. This legal framework aims to enhance the dignity and integrity of nursing home residents and discourage rights violations. The statutes specify that a resident or their curator may bring the action, but do not clarify whether the right to sue is heritable.
Heritability of obligations is governed by Articles 1765 and 1766 of the Louisiana Civil Code. Article 1765 establishes that obligations are generally heritable unless specified otherwise. Article 1766 states that obligations intended solely for the benefit of the obligee are personal and not heritable. In this case, the obligation of nursing homes to uphold statutory rights for residents is deemed heritable, as it is owed to all residents collectively, aiming to protect their dignity and autonomy. The legislature could have explicitly defined exceptions to heritability if intended, but it did not. The cause of action for enforcing these rights has a longer prescriptive period and includes attorney fees, distinguishing it from tort actions, thus favoring heirs under statutory action over negligence law. While no case has definitively addressed the heritability of this cause of action, some cases suggest or assume heritability. The trial court's ruling sustaining the exception of no right of action is deemed erroneous, leading to a reversal of the judgment and remand for further proceedings. Costs are assigned to the appellee. The judgment is a partial one that should have been certified under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B), and the issue is suitable for supervisory review. Additionally, a sponsor, as defined in La. R.S. 40:2010.7(1), refers to an adult relative, friend, or guardian of a resident involved in their welfare, preferably designated on admission forms.
