Carnell v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc.
2012 Ark. App. 698
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- AEO operates Willowbend and is a nonprofit charitable entity; plaintiff sues after Mason’s injuries during residency.
- AEO, HC Financial, HC Staffing, and Baskins are sued for various negligence-related claims; trial court granted summary judgments relying on charitable-immunity.
- AEO was created in 2002 by investors as a charitable organization to avoid liability insurance; HC Financial (2003) and HC Staffing (2003) provide services to AEO.
- Investors leased Johnson-Hobson Care Home as Willowbend and leased to AEO; MeCollister and Southern Key involved in ownership and management.
- Appellant argued charitable immunity should be abolished and that genuine issues exist about whether AEO is a real charitable entity and whether expenses were legitimate.
- The court reversed in part and remanded as to AEO, while affirming judgments for Baskins and HC Financial on some grounds; issues regarding ex parte communications and Residents’ Rights claims were discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEO is entitled to charitable-immunity as a matter of law | AEO is not a true charitable entity; profits flow to investors and not for charity. | AEO satisfies factors showing charitable status and relies on the doctrine narrowly. | No; genuine issues of material fact remain as to AEO's charitable status. |
| Baskins' duty and potential breach | Baskins, as Willowbend administrator, bears duty to residents and may be liable. | Direct care was outside Baskins' employment scope; no specific breach shown. | Baskins not liable; duty asserted not shown to breach or proximate cause. |
| HC Financial's responsibility and relation to Residents' Rights | HC Financial proximately caused injuries by controlling care-related services. | HC Financial did not provide direct care and isn’t subject to Residents' Rights statute. | HC Financial not liable; no direct care or statutory duty shown. |
| Ex parte communications with corporate employees | Rule 4.2 should limit communications with represented entities; discovery discretion favors relief. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; broad vicarious-liability allegations okay. | No reversible error; trial court’s ruling within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Downing v. Lawrence Hall Nursing Ctr., 2010 Ark. 175, 369 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. 2010) (charitable-immunity factors and burden on proponent)
- George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 337 Ark. 206, 987 S.W.2d 710 (Ark. 1999) (narrow construction of charitable-immunity doctrine; eight-factor test)
- Watkins v. Ark. Elder Outreach, 2012 Ark. App. 301, 420 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. App. 2012) (reasonableness and factors in charitable-status determinations; jury appropriate in fact questions)
- K.C. Props. of Nw. Ark., Inc. v. Lowell Inv. Partners, LLC, 373 Ark. 14, 280 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2008) (abuse of corporate form; fact question for trier of fact)
- Anglin v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 289 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. 2008) (charitable-immunity considerations and executive-structure scrutiny)