Watkins v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc.
2012 Ark. App. 301
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is an appeal from summary judgments in a negligence action against a nursing home and related entities claiming charitable-immunity and other defenses.
- Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc. (AEO) operates Willowbend at Marion and other homes as a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) entity; questions arose whether its structure or payments to related entities negate charitable immunity.
- Plaintiff alleged the defendants breached duties of care and violated state/federal regulations and the residents’ rights statute in Frances Watkins’s care; ex parte communications with employees were contested.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to AEO on charitable immunity and to the other defendants on other grounds; the matter was appealed.
- The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding AEO’s charitable-immunity status; other defendants’ summary judgments were affirmed, and relief was granted on remand for AEO.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, and recognized the doctrine’s narrow construction and legislative policy implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEO is entitled to charitable immunity as a matter of law | Watkins argued abolition or narrow interpretation; evidence suggests abuse of charitable form | AEO bears burden to show non-profit, charitable status and proper use of funds | Genuine issues of fact remain; summary judgment reversed and remanded on AEO's status |
| Whether Threlkeld owed a duty and proximate cause supports liability | Threlkeld’s duties and regulatory standards create liability for care decisions | No direct care by Threlkeld; no personal duty proven; statute/regulations not create private action | Proximate cause not shown; judgment in Threlkeld’s favor affirmed |
| Whether HC Financial and Walsh proximately caused Watkins's injuries | HC Financial/Walsh contributed to care deficiencies via budgeting and oversight | No evidence of breach or causal link to Watkins’s injuries | No proximate-cause evidence; judgments affirmed |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion regarding ex parte communications | Rule 4.2 restrictions should not bar essential communications with employees | Organization’s vicarious liability allegations justify restricting ex parte communications | No abuse of discretion; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Downing v. Lawrence Hall Nursing Ctr., 2010 Ark. 175 (Ark. Supreme Court 2010) (factors for charitable-immunity status; abuse of charitable form a fact question)
- George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, 337 Ark. 206 (Ark. Supreme Court 1999) (charitable-immunity framework; profits not dispositive; surpluses may support charity)
- Anglin v. Johnson Reg’l Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 10 (Ark. Supreme Court 2008) (charitable-immunity factors; profits and services context)
- Sowders v. St. Joseph’s Mercy Health Center, 368 Ark. 466 (Ark. Supreme Court 2007) (charitable-immunity principles in Arkansas)
- Rice v. Ragsdale, 104 Ark.App. 364 (Ark. Court of Appeals 2009) (public-policy considerations in appellate review of charitable-immunity decisions)
- Breckenridge v. Ashley, 55 Ark.App. 242 (Ark. Court of Appeals 1996) (context on charitable-immunity and statutory influence)
- Jackson v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 533 (Ark. Supreme Court 2009) (statutory/regulatory relevance to negligence claims in care settings)
- Mercy Health Sys. of Nw. Ark., Inc. v. Bicak, 2011 Ark. App. 341 (Ark. Court of Appeals 2011) (summary-judgment standard and evidentiary review)
- Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75 (Ark. Supreme Court 2012) (regulatory framework interplay with tort duties)