Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips
2017 Ark. 162
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (led by Andrew Phillips, personal representative of Dorothy Phillips’ estate) sued Robinson Nursing and related entities alleging chronic understaffing at Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (residence period at issue includes June 11, 2010–present and Dorothy Phillips’ residency Aug 2013–Feb 2014).
- Claims included breach of the admission/provider agreements, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), unjust enrichment, negligence, and civil conspiracy; plaintiffs sought class certification.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court certified a class of all residents and estates who resided at Robinson from June 11, 2010 to present, identifying common questions (e.g., whether understaffing breached agreements/statutes and violated ADTPA).
- Robinson appealed interlocutorily, arguing plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23 requirements (commonality, predominance, typicality, superiority) and that the class definition is overbroad.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed certification for breach-of-contract, ADTPA, and unjust-enrichment claims (finding common, predominant, typical, and superior class issues) but reversed and remanded to decertify the class as to the negligence claim (proximate-cause individualized issues predominate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality & Predominance (contract, ADTPA, unjust enrichment) | Lamb and Thomas control; Robinson’s understaffing is a unitary corporate practice creating common questions that predominate | The present case differs from Lamb/Thomas; claims vary across residents and include additional causes (e.g., negligence) making common issues insufficient | Affirmed: commonality and predominance met for contract, ADTPA, unjust-enrichment claims (overarching issue of chronic understaffing) |
| Superiority (manageability/efficiency of class action) | Class action is most efficient to resolve central understaffing question before addressing individual damages | Individualized trials for injury, causation, damages defeat superiority and judicial economy | Affirmed: class action is superior for resolving classwide understaffing issue; individual issues can be addressed later if decertification required |
| Typicality | Representative’s claim arises from same alleged understaffing conduct affecting all class members | Staffing varied over time; representative’s short residency may not be typical; some class members might assert different theories | Affirmed: typicality satisfied because claims arise from same course of alleged conduct (understaffing) |
| Negligence (class certification) | Negligence fits within the same systemic-understaffing framework; class certification appropriate | Negligence requires individualized proof of breach, proximate cause, and injury for each resident, making class treatment inappropriate | Reversed: decertify negligence claim — proximate causation and individualized injury inquiries predominate and defeat class treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb, 465 S.W.3d 826 (Ark. 2015) (approved certifying class for understaffing-based contractual and statutory claims)
- Beverly Enters.-Ark., Inc. v. Thomas, 259 S.W.3d 445 (Ark. 2007) (upheld class certification where a common understaffing question predominated)
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Vickers, 308 S.W.3d 573 (Ark. 2009) (explains Rule 23 commonality and that defendant’s uniform conduct can create common questions)
- Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snowden, 233 S.W.3d 664 (Ark. 2006) (discusses that preliminary common issues may predominate even if damages require later individual proceedings)