Estate of Sara A. McCorkle, by Charlotte A. Shirey v. Erickson Senior Living, LLC.
0614234
Va. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Sara A. McCorkle, an elderly resident with dementia, suffered a burn injury after an unsupervised shower at an assisted living facility run by Greenspring Village, Inc. and Erickson Senior Living, LLC.
- The family had notified the facility of her need for supervision, especially regarding showering and fall prevention, and raised concerns about inadequate staffing and previous care deficiencies.
- The Virginia Department of Social Services investigated and cited the facility for several regulatory violations related to resident supervision and care planning in connection with Ms. McCorkle's incident.
- McCorkle (later represented by her estate) filed suit asserting negligence, breach of contract, consumer protection, and punitive damages; the trial court sustained a demurrer on punitive damages and ruled on other evidentiary and instructional disputes.
- The jury ultimately found for McCorkle on negligence but not on breach of contract, awarding $45,000 in damages. McCorkle appealed on multiple evidentiary, instructional, and procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punitive damages demurrer | Sufficient facts for punitive damages; form should not override substance | Punitive damages are a remedy, not a standalone cause of action; complaint was procedurally flawed | No error; punitive damages must be tied to a cause of action |
| Jury instructions: ordinary care vs. malpractice | Some claims were ordinary negligence, not malpractice; no expert needed | All claims involved medical malpractice; expert testimony required | No error; claims required expert testimony and were instructed accordingly |
| Admission of regulatory violation evidence | Regulatory citations and prior violations showed notice and relevance to negligence/punitive dmgs | Only violations relating to McCorkle’s incident are relevant; others are prejudicial or irrelevant | No error; only findings relevant to McCorkle’s incident admitted |
| Exclusion of specific witness testimony | Error to exclude or limit expert, lay, and cross-exam testimony supporting her claims | Testimony excluded as irrelevant, hearsay, cumulative, or not within witness qualification | No abuse of discretion; proper evidentiary limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Nestler v. Scarabelli, 77 Va. App. 440 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (punitive damages are not a standalone cause of action in Virginia)
- Beverly Enterprises-Virginia Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264 (Va. 1994) (expert testimony generally required for medical malpractice claims in nursing facilities)
- Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Center, 264 Va. 408 (Va. 2002) (expert testimony required for standard of care in nursing facility negligence)
- Hancock-Underwood v. Knight, 277 Va. 127 (Va. 2009) (jury instructions must accurately reflect the law and evidence)
- Riverside Hospital, Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518 (Va. 2006) (admission of internal protocols depends on context; cannot establish legal standard of care)
- Pullen v. Nickens, 226 Va. 342 (Va. 1983) (internal rules/policies cannot establish legal standard of care in negligence)