Washington, D.C. (July 6, 2023) – On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, No. 21-806 by holding an individual may pursue a private right of action for alleged violations of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 (FNHRA). This decision upends more than twenty years of Supreme Court precedent, formerly holding that "the typical remedy for state noncompliance with federal imposed conditions is not a private cause of action for noncompliance but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to the State." Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 280 (2002); Prince v. Dicker, 29 Fed. Appx. 52 (2d Cir. 2002).
In this case, the respondent filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the petitioner in the Northern District of Indiana, alleging its nursing home improperly administered chemical restraints upon the respondent's decedent and made several attempts to transfer the decedent to another facility without providing advanced notice to the petitioner. The District Court dismissed the case, holding the FNHRA did not provide a private right of action for alleged noncompliance. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding the provisions of the FNHRA at issue unambiguously conferred individually enforceable rights on nursing home residents, creating a presumed private right of action.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit's decision. The Court held the specific provisions of the FNHRA at issue (42 U.S.C. Sections 1396r(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 1396r(c)(2)(A)-(B)) expressly concern "requirements relating to residents' rights" and thus evince a Congressional intent to confer a private right of action upon nursing home residents. The Court further held the FNHRA contained neither an explicit nor implied comprehensive scheme for individual enforcement of the statute incompatible with a private right of action.
To be clear, the Supreme Court limited its holding to two discrete provisions of the FNHRA, those dealing the use of chemical restraints and requirements for resident discharge. However, we anticipate federal courts may apply this decision in the future to cases alleging other provisions of the FNHRA, so long as the alleged violations are rooted within requirements relating to residents' rights (42 U.S.C. 1396r). New York currently permits a plaintiff to rely on the Public Health Law and Code of Rules and Regulations as a basis for alleging statutory liability. Many other states have similar regulations that allow a separate claim for alleged resident right violations. In light of the Talevski decision, we anticipate residents will seek to expand their claims to other subjects ranging from the development of pressure ulcers to trip and fall accidents in the hopes of expanding their recovery potential. On the upside, the Talevski decision is now a basis for removal of these cases from state to federal court, a venue which typically holds the parties to stricter compliance with discovery and motion practice deadlines.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.