2012 IL App (5th) 100033
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff, Paul Graves, as special administrator of Alfred Graves, sued Rosewood Care Center under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act for a hip fracture Alfred suffered during respite care at Rosewood in January 2003.
- After a mistrial, the second trial yielded a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for approximately $149,115.
- Plaintiff challenged instructions on neglect, the role of governing regulations, and the admissibility of evidence from a bill from another nursing home.
- Key trial evidence focused on a pre-admission level-of-care assessment, discrepancies between staff assessments, and the functioning of Alfred’s call system and transfers.
- Medical testimony indicated Alfred was frail with weight loss and dementia, and post-fall rehabilitation showed limited long-term recovery, supporting the finding of negligence.
- The trial court affirmed the verdict and later awarded attorney fees; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Graves asserts evidence supported negligence and causation. | Rosewood contends Alfred’s independence and physician guidance negate negligence. | Verdict supported; not against weight of the evidence. |
| Whether the neglect definition instruction was proper | Definition aligned with the Act and was properly instructive. | Instruction omitted the word 'adequate' and risked ambiguity. | Instruction proper; no prejudice from minor omission. |
| Whether instructions on regulations promulgated under the Act were proper | Regulations help define standard of care and are admissible to aid jurors. | Regulations are vague or improperly used to shift liability. | Instructions on regulations proper and properly integrated with statutory standard. |
| Whether the IPI 5.01 adverse-inference instruction was appropriate | Flow-sheet evidence existed and its missing status warranted the inference. | No foundation for the existence or control of the document; unfair inference. | Instruction properly issued given foundation and control showing. |
| Whether admitting a bill from Hitz Nursing Home was error | The bill reflected Alfred's ongoing disability and rehabilitation needs. | Disputed post-rosewood ambulation and discharge notes undermined probative value. | Properly admitted; evidence supported assessing damages and prognosis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp., 111 Ill. 2d 350 (1986) (standard of care for nursing home negligence; treble damages rationale)
- Stogsdill v. Manor Convalescent Home, Inc., 35 Ill. App. 3d 634 (1976) (regulatory requirements too vague to prove standard of care pre-act)
- Grimming v. Alton & Southern Ry. Co., 204 Ill. App. 3d 961 (1990) (admissibility of standards, safety rules, and codes to assist standard of care)
- Davis v. Marathon Oil Co., 64 Ill. 2d 380 (1976) (regulations can inform but not conclusively determine care standard)
- Darling v. Charleston Community Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326 (1965) (early authority on use of hospital regulations in standard of care analysis)
- Mikus v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 11 (2000) (proximity and causation standard for regulatory evidence)
- Rath v. Carbondale Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 536 (2007) (attorney-fee remand considerations after appellate proceedings)
- Berlak v. Villa Scalabrini Home for the Aged, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d 231 (1996) (remedies and fee-shifting context for nursing-home actions)