GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 432

Background

Twelve Golden Living nursing homes and related entities/officers were sued in a putative class action alleging chronic understaffing from Dec. 2006 to July 1, 2009, in violation of standard admission agreements, the Arkansas Long-Term Care Residents’ Rights Act, and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA).
Appellees (resident plaintiffs or their representatives) sought class certification for breach of contract, statutory violations, and ADTPA claims, alleging systemic understaffing caused various dignitary and physical harms.
The Ouachita County Circuit Court certified a class exceeding 3,400 residents, identifying common questions of law and fact (e.g., existence of minimum-staffing duties, whether defendants chronically understaffed, and related ADTPA/control-person issues).
Appellants (Golden Living and related parties) appealed interlocutorily, arguing predominance and superiority under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23 were not met, the class definition was overbroad, and arbitration agreements and individualized causation/ injury issues defeat certification.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding common issues of liability (existence of duty and systemic understaffing) predominate and class treatment (with possible bifurcation/decertification for individual damages) is superior and manageable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Predominance: whether common issues predominate under Rule 23	Classwide question exists: whether defendants chronically understaffed and breached admission agreements/statutes; that overarching liability question predominates	Individualized causation, injury, and damages vary per resident and thus predominate, preventing class treatment	Affirmed: common overarching liability issues (duty and systemic understaffing) predominate; individual damage questions can be bifurcated/decertified later
Superiority: whether class action is superior/manageable	Classwide resolution of liability is more efficient and avoids multiplicity of suits across twelve facilities	Complexity (944 days, 32,031 shifts, multiple facilities) and need for individual damage proofs make class proceedings unworkable	Affirmed: class procedure is superior and manageable; statutory reports of understaffed shifts aid manageability and judicial economy favors single proceeding
Class definition: whether class is ascertainable or overbroad for not requiring proof of actual injury	Class need not be defined by actual injury; objective criteria (residency during period) suffice for ascertainability	Class is overbroad because it includes residents who suffered no injury from understaffing	Affirmed: definition is administratively feasible and need not include merits-based injury element
Arbitration agreements and opt-outs	Plaintiffs: only a small subset signed arbitration agreements; not shown to undermine class certification	Defendants: multiple class members (some representatives) have arbitration agreements, which may predominate and bar class relief	Rejected: record did not show a substantial number of members bound to arbitration sufficient to defeat certification

Key Cases Cited

Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 870 Ark. 310, 259 S.W.3d 445 (holding systemic understaffing can present an overarching classwide issue of liability)
Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75, 386 S.W.3d 493 (causation is an element under the Residents’ Rights Act and must be proven)
Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC v. Hernandez, 2009 Ark. 480, 347 S.W.3d 1 (proximate causation may be a foundational element that prevents class treatment when liability requires individualized exposure inquiries)
Union Pacific R.R. v. Vickers, 2009 Ark. 259, 308 S.W.3d 573 (class certification improper where there is no one set of operative facts to establish liability)
Baker v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab. Div., 338 Ark. 242, 992 S.W.2d 797 (individualized issues of conduct, causation, and damages may defeat predominance in mass-tort context)