Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. Partnership
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18725
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eryetha Mayberry, an elderly resident with arthritis and dementia, lived at Quail Creek Nursing Home from 2008 until April 2012; her daughters sued after video showed two CNAs (Gakunga and Kaseke) abusing her.
- Video clips (no audio) showed slapping, stuffing gloves into Mayberry’s mouth, rough transfers, and compressions on the torso; other witnesses corroborated additional abusive incidents.
- Quail Creek admitted the conduct was abuse; management records showed multiple prior employee infractions and poor investigation/reporting of complaints.
- Jury found Westlake (Quail Creek) liable for negligence and negligence per se, found reckless disregard, and awarded $1.2 million compensatory and $10,000 punitive damages; district court denied post-trial motions.
- Westlake appealed raising four issues: statutory noneconomic damages cap ($350,000), excessiveness of compensatory award/remittitur or new trial, improper timing of punitive-related closing argument, and admission of other-incident evidence (April 4, 2012) with limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma’s $350,000 noneconomic damages cap required reduction of the $1.2M award | The cap is an affirmative defense that Westlake waived by not pleading it; thus award need not be reduced | The cap is mandatory under Oklahoma law and plaintiffs failed to follow procedures to exceed it, so award should be reduced | Court held the cap is an affirmative defense under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and Oklahoma law; Westlake waived it by failing to plead it; no reduction |
| Whether $1.2M compensatory award was excessive (remittitur/new trial) | Award supported by evidence of repeated abuse, emotional distress, and contribution to decline/death — not excessive | Award is excessive; ask remittitur to $100,000 or new trial | Court applied Oklahoma standard and held the award was not excessive and denied remittitur/new trial |
| Whether plaintiffs’ closing argument in phase one improperly invited punitive/deterrent reasoning and requires new trial | Closing briefly referenced deterrence/punishment but plaintiffs limited phase-one requests to compensatory relief and reminded jury about bifurcated process | Argument improperly invited punitive considerations during phase one and prejudiced the jury | Court found some remarks ill-timed but not prejudicial given instructions, verdict form, and small punitive award; no new trial |
| Whether district court erred admitting evidence of April 4, 2012 incident despite limiting instruction | Evidence admissible to show notice and pattern if it occurred prior to the relevant abuse; timing disputed so admissible with limiting instruction | April 4 incident occurred after the abuse (or was irrelevant) and was unfairly prejudicial | Court upheld admission with limiting instruction because timeline was disputed and probative value was not unfairly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (federal review of state-law damages standards and remittitur principles)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (federal rules govern procedure unless they abridge/modify substantive state rights)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (framework for resolving conflicts between Federal Rules and state substantive law)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (no unavoidable conflict means state and federal law can coexist)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (Rule 8(c) treats certain defenses as affirmative and must be pleaded)
- Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530 (1949) (state-created causes of action include attendant burdens and defenses)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (Erie inquiry: substantive rules that affect outcome must be applied)
- James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (applying Shady Grove framework in diversity context)
- Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 561 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2009) (standards for new trial based on prejudicial closing argument)