In a case involving a nursing home resident’s death, the Appellate Division, Third Department, considered whether Public Health Law § 2801-d permits recovery when the patient dies as a result of a violation of rights. In Hauser v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., the nursing home argued that the law does not allow for compensation for death under this statute. The court rejected that view and allowed the case to proceed, confirming that the statute includes death as a redressable injury.
Background Facts
Bert Dwain Butler Sr. was a resident at Fort Hudson Nursing Center, which is operated by Fort Hudson Health System, Inc. After his death, the administrator of his estate, Jennifer Hauser, brought a lawsuit against the nursing home. The complaint included several claims: violations of Public Health Law §§ 2801-d and 2803-c, negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and wrongful death.
Before trial, the defendants asked the court to limit the types of damages the estate could seek under the statute. Specifically, the defendants argued that death should not be treated as an “injury” under Public Health Law § 2801-d and that damages under this law should not be combined with other claims like conscious pain and suffering.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument and ruled that the estate could proceed with all claims. The defendants then asked the court to reconsider, and the court reaffirmed its decision. The defendants appealed both orders.
Issue
The court was asked to decide whether Public Health Law § 2801-d allows a nursing home resident’s estate to recover damages for the resident’s death, and whether such damages could be claimed separately from other statutory or common law causes of action like wrongful death and pain and suffering.
Holding
The court held that Public Health Law § 2801-d does allow for recovery based on the death of a patient. It also held that damages under this statute may be pursued alongside other available claims, as long as there is no double recovery for the same injury. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions and allowed the case to proceed to trial with all claims intact.
Rationale
Public Health Law § 2801-d provides that a residential health care facility is liable to a patient for injuries suffered when the facility deprives the patient of a right or benefit. The statute explicitly defines “injury” to include physical harm, emotional harm, financial loss, and death. The court relied on this language to conclude that death can be the basis for a claim under the statute.
The defendants argued that common law and the wrongful death statutes only permit damages for injuries suffered before death and that survivors must rely on specific statutes to recover compensation for losses related to death. But the court explained that § 2801-d was passed to offer additional protections to nursing home patients and is meant to deter facilities from violating patients’ rights.
The court also addressed the argument that combining damages under § 2801-d with claims for pain and suffering or wrongful death would be duplicative. It explained that while a plaintiff cannot receive compensation twice for the same injury, the statute allows for separate claims based on different types of harm. For example, the statute permits recovery for the injury of death itself even if the patient was not conscious of pain or suffering before death.
The court further noted that Public Health Law § 2801-d does not require the plaintiff to prove medical negligence or deviation from accepted practices. It is enough to show that the nursing home violated a legal or contractual right of the patient and that the violation caused harm. Because the statute defines harm to include death, the estate’s claim could proceed.
The court compared this approach to how courts have treated claims under federal civil rights laws like 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that context, courts allow families to recover for a decedent’s loss of life, not just for pain and suffering or economic losses suffered by survivors. The court saw this as a comparable structure, where the legislature intended to allow recovery for the harm caused by the deprivation of rights, including death.
Lastly, the court rejected the defendants’ concern about double recovery. While damages must not be awarded twice for the same injury, a plaintiff can still pursue multiple claims arising from the same incident if each claim addresses a different form of harm. The statute itself states that its remedies are “in addition to and cumulative with” other remedies at law or in equity, including tort claims. This language supports the view that claims under § 2801-d may be pursued along with common law claims like negligence or wrongful death.
Conclusion
The court clarified that Public Health Law § 2801-d permits recovery for a patient’s death resulting from a nursing home’s violation of rights. It also confirmed that the statute is separate from, and does not replace, other remedies available under New York law. This decision allows families to pursue broader legal claims when nursing homes fail to meet legal standards of care, especially when those failures result in a patient’s death.
If you or a loved one has suffered serious injuries, contact an experienced New York nursing home abuse lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your rights and potential claims, and to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.