Howard v. Estate of Harper, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00115-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-00115-SCT ; 2005-IA-00115-SCT ; 2005-IA-00115-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-26-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence - Common law duty upon a nursing home licensee or administrator - Liability for medical malpractice - Fraud - M.R.C.P. 9(b) - Fiduciary duty Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J. Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: Personal Injury |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-05-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: 02-CV-081(R) |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2005-IA-00117-SCT Guy J. Howard and Joyce Howard v. The Estate of Melvin Thead, by and through Sandra Patton, Administratrix of the Estate of Melvin Thead, for the Use and Benefit of the Estate of Melvin Thead, and for the Use and Benefit of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Melvin Thead; Lauderdale Circuit Court; LC Case #: 02-CV-064(R); Ruling Date: 01/05/2005; Ruling Judge: Robert Bailey | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GUY J. HOWARD AND JOYCE
HOWARD
|
WILLIAM W. McKINLEY, JR., AMANDA BENEFIELD QUAVE |
||
| Appellee: | THE ESTATE OF EARLINE B. HARPER, BY AND THROUGH TALMADGE L. HARPER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EARLINE B. HARPER, AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF EARLINE B. HARPER, AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF EARLINE B. HARPER | DOUGLAS BRYANT CHAFFIN, ANTHONY LANCE REINS, SUSAN NICHOLS ESTES, KENNETH LUKE CONNOR, STEPHEN B. JACKSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Negligence - Common law duty upon a nursing home licensee or administrator - Liability for medical malpractice - Fraud - M.R.C.P. 9(b) - Fiduciary duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | Melvin Thead, in a state of deteriorated health, including agerelated dementia and impaired cognitive skills, was admitted to a Benchmark Healthcare nursing home in Marion. Earline Harper, with similar health problems, was also admitted to Benchmark’s Marion facility. Representatives of both the Estates of Melvin Thead and Earline Harper filed separate suits against Benchmark Health Care, Inc., and Benchmark Management and Investment, Inc., “John Does 1 through 10," and “Unidentified Entities 1 through 10." Plaintiffs also filed suit against Joyce Howard in her capacity as administrator of Benchmark, as well as Guy Howard in his capacity as licensee of Benchmark, alleging simple negligence, medical malpractice, malice and/or gross negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, survival claim, and wrongful death. Joyce and Guy Howard filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, as well as a certification of its ruling for interlocutory appeal. The Howards filed petitions for interlocutory appeal which were granted by the Supreme Court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | A nursing home or its proprietor or owner can be held liable under general principles of tort law for negligent acts or omissions regarding the care of its residents. The plaintiffs argue this duty extends to administrators and licensees because they are involved with a nursing home’s operations. Based on the absence of statutory law from the Legislature and the absence of case law calling for the expansion of this duty, as well as the fact that such expansion would be duplicative of the duty already owed by the nursing home business owner or proprietor, the Court declines to impose the same common law duty upon a nursing home licensee or administrator. The plaintiffs also argue Mississippi statutes and regulations charge administrators and licensees with a duty of care owed to nursing home residents. However, none of the licensing statutes expressly create a duty by a licensee or an administrator to residents of a nursing home; nor does a breach of a licensing statute support a negligence action filed by a third party. The plaintiffs also argue that the Minimum Standards provide a cause of action against an administrator and licensee. The Minimum Standards issued by the State Board of Health are a result of the legislature’s mandate to impose licensing requirements on nursing homes. As the scope of sections 43-11-1 et seq. is limited to licensing concerns, any duty (or inference thereof) created by the Minimum Standards is unenforceable. The Howards argue that they cannot be held liable for medical malpractice. The plaintiffs argue that the Howards are barred from asserting this issue on appeal because the Howards neither made this allegation in their motion to dismiss, nor made the allegation in their petition for interlocutory appeal. However, in the Howards’ motion to dismiss, they asserted the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). This assertion is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. The Howards argue the plaintiffs cannot maintain an action against them for medical malpractice, because as a administrator and a licensee, they are not medical providers. In their official capacity as licensee and administrator, the Howards are not medical care providers. As such, the plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, sustain an action of medical malpractice against the Howards. The Howards argue that the plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud cannot stand because the plaintiffs failed to plead their claim with particularity as required by M.R.C.P. 9(b). In their complaints, the plaintiffs simply allege the collective defendants (not each defendant specifically) misrepresented the qualitative and quantitative care and supervision they would receive, and made those misrepresentations to the plaintiffs and their families. The complaint does not specify the date or locations the allegedly fraudulent statements were made. These general allegations and missing content are fatal under the pleading standards of Rule 9(b). The Howards argue that a fiduciary relationship, as a matter of law, cannot exist between nursing home patients and a nursing home’s administrator and licensee based solely on their positions as administrator and licensee. As a matter of law, a fiduciary duty cannot exist simply because of the Howards’ roles as licensee and administrator. Nor does a duty exist otherwise, as the plaintiffs have failed to state facts giving rise to a fiduciary relationship between the Howards and plaintiffs. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
