Estate of Finley ex rel. Jordan ex rel. Finley ex rel. Finley v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
Docket: No. 2005-CA-00060-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; July 18, 2006; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Verrie Jordan, representing her father Willie Finley’s estate and wrongful death beneficiaries, filed a lawsuit against Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., along with David Banks and Charlie Sinclair, Jr., alleging wrongful death, negligence, and medical malpractice. The Circuit Court of Hinds County granted summary judgment for the defendants after claiming that Jordan's responses to requests for admissions were insufficient and subsequently deemed them admitted. Jordan appeals, raising four primary issues: whether the trial court erred in deeming the requests admitted, refusing to allow withdrawal of those admissions, granting summary judgment based on the admissions, and whether nursing home administrators have a duty of care to residents.
The case details that Finley was admitted to Beverly Northwest nursing home with terminal cancer and later transferred to Whispering Pines Hospice, where he died shortly after. Jordan claims inadequate care at Beverly Northwest, citing staff shortages and administrative issues that resulted in severe health complications leading to Finley's death. During discovery, the defendants’ request for admissions regarding adherence to the standard of care was met with non-responsive answers from Jordan, which the court found insufficient after multiple attempts to remedy. The court ultimately deemed the admissions as established, concluding that the caregivers did not deviate from the standard of care, leading to the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Jordan argues against the deemed admissions, stating they misrepresented her case. However, the court maintains that matters of discovery are at the discretion of the trial court and will only be overturned upon a clear abuse of that discretion. The court affirmed the summary judgment, asserting that the evidence supported the conclusion that Finley received adequate care.
Defendants have submitted 176 requests for admissions asking the Plaintiff to acknowledge that none of their employees fell below the standard of care for Willie Finley. The Plaintiff argues that these requests ignore the systemic issues at the nursing home, specifically corporate policies leading to understaffing and inadequate training, which prevented employees from meeting care standards. The Plaintiff contends that the named Defendants are directly responsible for the breaches in care due to these failures. The Plaintiff objects to the requests, viewing them as a tactic to obstruct discovery, and clarifies that they do not attribute blame to individual non-management employees but rather to the systemic failures created by management. In Jordan’s amended response, it is asserted that Finley’s injuries resulted from cumulative acts and omissions over time, making it impractical to assign fault to individual staff members, as omissions are often unrecorded. Thus, responsibility lies primarily with the Defendants who established the detrimental policies leading to the injuries.
Defendants established a work environment that hindered employees from meeting care standards due to staffing shortages and inadequate support. They are directly accountable for the breaches in care standards provided to Willie Finley. The Plaintiff acknowledges the difficulty in identifying which individuals specifically provided care but indicates that those named in the requests may have deviated from care standards due to the Defendants’ negligent and grossly negligent actions. These failures include inadequate staffing, lack of supervision and training, insufficient supplies for care, and an unsupportive work environment for staff.
The Plaintiff does not intend to sue individual caregivers or report deviations to authorities, citing the unfairness of holding them accountable for conditions they were compelled to work under. While the Plaintiff believes that named individuals did not breach the standard of care, the lack of discovery documents and proper staff documentation prevents a definitive admission or denial regarding their adherence to care standards. The court has deemed Jordan’s answers as admitted. According to Rule 36, responses to requests for admissions must specifically deny or detail reasons for inability to admit or deny, and mere lack of information is insufficient unless a reasonable inquiry has been made. The court may order admissions or require amended answers if responses do not comply.
The Mississippi Supreme Court clarified that while Rule 36 should be applied as written, it should not be enforced in an overly stringent manner. The rule’s objective is to identify undisputed facts, not to allow parties to evade fact adjudication through manipulation. In the case at hand, Jordan's amended answer was deemed ineffective in fulfilling this purpose. Her response was inconsistent and convoluted, contradicting itself by simultaneously admitting and denying deviations from the standard of care by the caregivers. Despite arguing that her case hinged on staffing shortages leading to negligence, her assertions undermined her position, as they implied that some employees must have breached the standard of care. The court noted that Jordan's failure to provide a clear, qualified denial as permitted by the rule hindered the determination of undisputed facts, especially since her unclear response followed a prior court order for adequate clarification.
Jordan's failure to provide specific instances of breaches of care by employees regarding Finley led to a contradictory response that the court deemed non-responsive. The court exercised its discretion to admit Jordan’s amended response, noting it was contradictory and non-compliant with procedural rules. Jordan’s initial contradictory claims were rejected, and the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the amended response.
Regarding Jordan's request to withdraw the admissions, the court's decision was also reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Rule 36 permits withdrawal if it aids the case's merits and does not prejudice the opposing party. Jordan's motion came less than two weeks before trial and after the Appellees filed for summary judgment, reflecting a shift in her strategy to attribute blame to nearly all employees. The Appellees argued that this late change prejudiced their preparation, as they had relied on Jordan's prior assertions that caregivers were not at fault. They emphasized the importance of the admissions in identifying which employees needed to be deposed. Jordan's attorney contended that the delay was not prejudicial due to the timeline of the incident and offered a continuance for the Appellees to prepare.
Jordan's motion to withdraw responses was denied by the court, which noted that the request came less than two weeks before trial, creating potential unfair prejudice to the defendants who had relied on the responses being admitted. The court found that allowing the withdrawal would necessitate additional witness preparation regarding the caregivers’ standard of care, which was deemed unfair to the defendants. The court did not abuse its discretion, as Jordan had previously been given the chance to comply with procedural rules.
Jordan also argued that the court erred in granting summary judgment based on these admitted responses, claiming that the term "standard of care" was not clearly defined and was subject to interpretation. She contended that not all claims required a professional standard of care, specifically noting that only the medical malpractice claim did. Additionally, she pointed out that one caregiver, Dwayne Gray, was excluded from the admitted responses. Jordan maintained that the caregivers provided reasonable care under challenging circumstances created by the defendants' policies prioritizing profit over quality care, which she believed justified their actions in meeting the standard of care.
The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, affirming that such a motion is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact. After considering Jordan's arguments, the court found them unpersuasive, indicating no genuine issue of material fact existed to warrant reversing the summary judgment.
Jordan's arguments regarding the meaning of "standard of care" are addressed separately, with a key point being that Jordan did not raise this issue in the lower court, thus being procedurally barred from doing so on appeal. Acknowledgment in Jordan’s response indicated clarity regarding the applicable standard of care, reinforcing this procedural bar. Even if considered, the argument lacks merit as established in Cole, where the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that the term "standard of care" suffices as a factual preamble in requests for admissions. The court clarified that the standard of care in negligence cases is based on the actions of a reasonable and prudent person under similar circumstances, a principle applicable to nursing home negligence cases. Additionally, Jordan's complaint aligns with this definition by asserting that defendants owed a duty to provide adequate care.
Moreover, while it was suggested that other employees besides Gray were omitted from the request for admissions, no specific names were provided, and Gray's exclusion does not undermine the motion for summary judgment. Gray's employment ended in October 1999 due to poor performance, and expert testimony indicated that the injuries to Finley occurred after Gray's termination, making his testimony irrelevant to any material fact in the case.
In order to establish liability, Jordan must demonstrate that Beverly's negligence was a proximate cause of Finley's injuries. However, the evidence presented fails to establish any direct link between Beverly's actions or inactions and Finley's condition. Witnesses acknowledged general staffing shortages at the facility but did not provide specific instances of how these issues negatively impacted Finley. For instance, while certified nursing assistant Ardean Bullock confirmed frequent short-staffing during the 11-to-7 shifts and noted that care for patients was compromised, she did not indicate any specific harm suffered by Finley due to these conditions.
Clarice Bowman, another caregiver, stated that Finley required considerable care and received more attention due to frequent family visits. This testimony suggests that Finley may have benefited from more care rather than less, contradicting Jordan's claims. Bowman could not provide specific details about Finley's pressure ulcers or the use of waist restraints, further weakening the argument for negligence.
Additionally, a survey conducted by the Mississippi Department of Health identified various issues at Beverly Northwest, but it was performed after Finley’s death and did not specifically address his circumstances, failing to establish a connection between the facility's shortcomings and Finley's injuries.
Jordan failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation through expert witnesses regarding Finley’s injuries at Beverly Northwest. Expert Shannon Morgan, a nurse, was designated to testify that the staff's inadequate care led to the development of pressure ulcers, but there was no assertion that a lack of staff caused Finley’s injuries. Similarly, Dr. Williams indicated that the staff failed to meet the standard of care, particularly in preventing falls and providing adequate hydration, but did not link these failures to staff shortages. Dr. Williams noted that the absence of documentation regarding turning Finley suggested inadequate care but did not clarify whether this was due to management failure or individual staff negligence. Morgan's deposition indicated a belief in insufficient staffing based on post-facility surveys and other depositions rather than personal observation, rendering her testimony inconclusive and insufficient to prevent summary judgment.
No genuine issue of material fact was established regarding Beverly's role as a proximate cause of Finley’s injuries, leading to the proper dismissal of Jordan's claims at summary judgment. Jordan argued that Mississippi law recognizes a cause of action against Banks and Sinclair, the licensee and administrator of Beverly Northwest, referencing the case Rein v. Benchmark Constr. Co. In Rein, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a jury should determine the duty of a landscaping company to a nursing home resident after a fatal fire ant attack, suggesting a similar jury determination should apply to Banks and Sinclair.
Jordan further asserted that nursing home administrators and licensees have independent legal duties to residents beyond those owed to the owning corporation, likening their responsibilities to those of captains or engineers charged with ensuring adequate care resources. However, the court found no need to assess these arguments as the prior analysis established that Jordan's admissions indicated no breach of care by the caregivers assigned to Finley. Consequently, without evidence of causation or breach, no action could proceed against Banks or Sinclair. The circuit court's judgment was affirmed, with all appeal costs assigned to Jordan. The defendants are referred to as 'the Appellees,' and while Jordan sued on behalf of the estate, the Plaintiff is referred to as 'Jordan.' Testimony indicated that Finley had fallen multiple times without sustaining injuries during Gray's employment.
