1

RUNING HEAD: Nursing (SNF) NEGLECT

California State University, Long Beach

HCA 340 Fall 2019

Legal Aspects of Management

Course Number 4520 Section 2

Nursing (SNF) NEGLECT

Vanesa Dominguez

November 8, 2019

Word Count: 1,534

2
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
Abstract

Tort laws were created to impose liability on parties responsible for harm. There are four

elements of tort law: Duty to care, Breach of duty, causation, and injury/damage. The purpose pf

tort laws are to ensure and protect patients from harmful acts. The purpose of this paper to

provide an understanding of how Nursing Negligence is committed by a reasonable prudent

person who is fully competent of act. The legal case that I will be cover is about how Skilled

Nursing Facilities neglect their patients during their stay. The case that I will be analyzing is

Jarman v. HCR Manocare, Inc, (Case NO. G049215). This case shows how a plaintiff is granted

compensations due to negligence and unlawful doings by nursing skilled facility employees.

Key words: verdict, cause of action, negligence, inherently speculative, sought, statutory

damages, punitive damages, liability, judgement.

3
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
Nursing (SNF) Neglect

Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

Jarman v. HCR Mano Care, Inc.
Case NO. 9 Cal.App.5th 807
(Cal. CT. App. 2017)

In the court case, Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc (Case NO. G049215), the plaintiff who

was known to be Jarman, filled a lawsuit against HCR ManorCare, Inc and Manor of Hemet,

CA,LLC, “(we refer to these individually as HCR and Hemet, Respectively, and collectively as

Manor care)” (See Jarman, p. 1). Jarman was admitted at the facility for three months” in 2008”.

He sues both of this parties for “violations of patient’s rights pursuant to Health and Safety Code

Section 1430 (section 1430), elder abuse, and negligence, all arising out of the care he received

at the nursing home” (See Jarman, p. 1). The reason why Jarman was admitted to Manor Care’s

facility was because he needed extensive care “after suffering a broken leg”. Jarman asserts, that

the facility was of aware his condition and that he need additional assistance with his “activities

of daily living, including bed mobility, transferring, locomotion, dressing, eating, toilet use,

hygiene, and bathing” (See Jarman, p .2). In addition, while being admitted at Manor Care’s

facility, he was neglected by the staff which caused him to develop “significant skin excoriation

and breakdown on his buttocks”. The jury’s founding proceeded to further findings by asserting

that Manor Care acted with “malice or fraud” in the conduct that caused him harm. Trial

proceeded in 2011, but by that time Jarman was deceased and his daughter, who was named

Janice took over as the plaintiff to further investigate his lawsuit against Manor Care. However,

the lawsuit concluded that “neither Jarman nor Manor Crew and formal distinctions between

Hemet and HCR in closing argument” (See Jarman, p. 4). Thus, the jury proceeded with

Jarman’s case while analyzing both parties’ allegations.

4
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
The jury’s further findings led them to agree with “Manor care there was insufficient

evidence to support the jury’s findings of malice, oppression or fraud” (See Manor Care, p. 1).

Jarman’s argues and “appeals from the portion of the judgement denying him punitive damages,

arguing the trail court erred by stricking the jury’s finding Manor Care acted with malice,

oppression or fraud” (See Jarman, p.1). In result, the jury realized that during Jarman’s the

facility acted viciously violating Jarman’s rights. The jury also found that the problems where

also reported to the Director of Nursing, “who qualified as a managing agent of the facility for

purposes of imposing punitive damages against it” (See Jarman, p. 2). This evidence was enough

to favor Jarman’s allegations, so further proceedings were made. Manor Care was quick to

appeal on this judgement and quickly argued against it. The defendant, “Manor Care argues the

court erred by allowing the jury to award Jarman a separate measure of statutory damages under

section 1430 for each of the 382 violations of his rights found by the jury” (See Manor Care, p.

2). Manor Care alleged that “only one award of statutory damages can made per case under

section 1430, in an amount not exceeding $500, not matter how many violations of a patient’s

rights are proven” (See Manor Care, p. 2). Manor Care also argues that the “statutory damage

award must be reversed in its entirely against HCR engaged in conduct that violated his rights

and because HCR is not a “licensee” subject to liability under section 1430” (See Manor care,

p.2). The defendant who was Manor care also alleged that the statutory damages should be

reversed because the verdict made inconsistent references to HCR and Hemet which made it an

insufficient judgement. Manor continues to argue that the negligence verdict can’t stand against

HCR and Hemet specifically making the damages awarded hypothetical to both parties. In

addition,” Manor Care Argues that any reversal and remanded of the attorney fees award” (See

Manor Care, p. 2). The jury wasn’t convinced by Manor Care allegations; instead, he favored the
5
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
plaintiff. The jury concluded that the plaintiff should be qualify for measure of damages for each

“cause of action asserted under the statue”. Manor Care failed to show how the statutory

damages had fewer causes of action under the statute. In result the jury did not conclude the

statutory damages were immoderate. The jury also rejected “its related claim that the attorney

fees and cists award in favor of Jarman must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration” (See

Jarman, p. 2). Manor submitted a proposed special verdict form which causes Jarman to object

to it. Jarman included, “its omission of specific findings relating to violations of the Patient’s Bill

of rights, and its improper attempt to separate the Manor Care defendants for purposes of

liability” (See, Jarman, p. 4). Jarman’s allegations indicated that there was no difference

between the action and potential liability of Hemet and HCR. Manor Care argued against

Jarman’s punitive damage allegations, arguing the evidence wasn’t sufficient under the law to

support Jarman’s favor on the issue. Further ruling and decisions were made by the jury.

The jury concluded that Manor Care had committed “382 violations of Jarman’s rights,

and that its conduct was negligent” (See, Jarman, p. 1). The jury also awarded Jarman “95,000

in statutory damages (calculated at a rate of $250 for each violation of his right) plus $100,000 in

damages caused my negligence” (See, Jarman, p. 1). The court ruled in favor of Plaintiff

because Jarman has enough evidence to prove That Manor Care was viciously mistreating him.

The complaint’s, who was Jarman, first cause of action. Is based on section 1430, “which allows

any current or former patient of a skilled facility nursing facility to pursue a private right action

against a facility that “violates any rights of the resident or patient as set forth in the Patients Bill

of Rights in Section 72527 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or any other right

provided for by federal or state law or regulation.” (1430, subd. (b). The complaint alleged state

and federal or state law of regulations requires facilities to: (1) have sufficient nursing staff to
6
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
provide for “the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well being of each

resident”;(2) ensure residents ”remain free from physical and mental abuse”; and (3) treat

residents “ with consideration, respect, and full recognition of dignity in care of personal needs”

(See, Jarman, p. 3). “After substantial postverdict wrangling, including an appeal to this court

(Jarman v HCR Manor Care Inc., et.al. (April 11, 2014, G0459215), 2014 WL 1401086

[nonpub. opn.] (Jarman I)), the trail court entered judgement against Manor Care in the amount

of $195,500. The court subsequently awarded Jarman $3668,755 in attorney fees. Jarman’s

assertion that Manor Care acted malice or oppression was not towards any employee or specific

director or nursing. Instead, “Jarman’s argument was that the facility’s consistent and repeated

violations of patient rights reflected and safety of its patients, including Jarman” (See, Jarman, p.

9). In result, the jury concluded that Jarman didn’t offer enough information to support that that

any directors, officers or managing agents knew about his mistreatment. To conclude, the

judgement is reversed, and the case is now proceeding in trail court to further analyze and

compensate the amount of punitive damages Jarman is entitled to recover as a result of Manor

Care’s 382 violations of his rights. The judgment is affirmed.

In my opinion, I believe Manor Care was negligent to Jarman. Manor Care failed to

conduct the right of duty of care of patient by not changing his soiled diapers and ignoring his

call lights. Manor Care violated the Duty of breach act by not making changes when Jarman was

consistently falling of his chair and bed. Manor Care failed to rotate patient causing skin tears,

discolorations of skin, and ulcers. The facility caused damages/ injury to patient by not caring

for the patient appropriately. Jarman developed multiple decubitus ulcers and skin excoriations

that took one year to heal during his stay at Manor Care facility. With all the facts that the article

stated it is proven that the conduct of care was negligent.

7
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
8
NURSING (SNF) NEGLECT
References

“Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc, 9 Cal. APP. 5th 807 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)