Lounds v. State Ex Rel. Department of Veterans Affairs
2011 OK CIV APP 54
Okla. Civ. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Lula Lounds, personal representative of the decedent David Shelton’s estate, sued ODVA for negligent care at Norman Veterans Center, a VA‑operated facility.
- Plaintiff asserted Center’s care caused Decedent’s dehydration and death within weeks of admission; TAC compliance acknowledged.
- Trial court rendered $175,000 verdict (statutory cap under 51 O.S. Supp.2010 § 154(A)(2)).
- State moved in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Kermanshahi; court allowed him to testify as an expert (weight not admissibility).
- Evidence showed Center violated its own policies and failed to monitor hydration/weight, leading to dehydration; center’s care allegedly fell below applicable standard; debate existed whether VA/Medicare regulations applied.
- Court held there was sufficient evidence of negligence under common law; alternatively, statutory negligence under federal VA/Medicare regulations was not a private action; damages affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of care governs the claim? | Common law standard applies; VA regulations may be considered but not required. | Center’s VA-regulations govern nursing home care; Plaintiff must prove the VA standard. | Common law standard supports negligence; statutory VA standard not required. |
| Was the federal VA/Medicare regulatory regime a private cause of action for injuries? | Regulations breach can support liability; private remedy may be implied. | No private right of action under federal regulations; remedy via administrative processes only. | No private right of action; statutory negligence claim stricken. |
| Was admission of Dr. Kermanshahi’s testimony error? | Expert qualified to opine on nursing-home care for geriatrics; his testimony supported liability. | He was not aware of VA-specific regulations; testimony should be excluded or given little weight. | Expert properly admitted; admissibility not error; weight to be judged by the fact-finder. |
| Were damages properly awarded at $175,000? | Damages cover pain, suffering, loss of companionship, and expenses. | Damages excessive given decedent’s age/health and reliance on plaintiff’s testimony. | Damages affirmed as modified; supported by evidence and instructions. |
| Was the award and judgment properly entered on the evidence? | Jury/trial court’s findings supported by medical records and testimony. | Record insufficient to prove standard of care beyond reasonable doubt; errors in regulatory references. | Judgment affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harder v. F.C. Clinton, 18 P.3d 1006 (Okla. 2003) (recognizes common-law nursing home duty to provide reasonable care)
- Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 977 P.2d 357 (Okla. 1998) (statutory tort standard tied to Nursing Home Act provisions)
- Whitaker v. Hill Nursing Home, Inc., 210 P.3d 877 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (statutory/nursing home standard discussed)
- Holbert v. Echeverria, 744 P.2d 960 (Okla. 1987) (implied private remedy test (Cort v. Ash modified))
- Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 977 P.2d 357 (Okla. 1998) (statutory negligence analysis for VA/Medicare contexts)
- Sides v. John Cordes, Inc., 981 P.2d 301 (Okla. 1999) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence at bench trial)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (establishes three-pronged test for implied private rights of action)