Juries and Nursing Homes - What Would We Do Without Them?

A couple years ago, Cornell University Law Professor Valerie P. Hans and Duke University Law Professor Neil Vidmar, leading experts in the field of jury research, wrote an article (based on lots of earlier research) in Judicature magazine dispelling boatloads of anti-jury myths about juror attitudes towards Big Business.  They said,

“[a]lthough the research finds that juries treat corporate actors differently, the differential treatment appears to be linked primarily to jurors setting higher standards for corporate and professional behavior, rather than to anti-business sentiments or a ‘deep pockets’ effect.  Members of the public, and juries in turn, believe that it is appropriate to hold corporations to higher standards, because of their greater knowledge, resources, and potential for impact.… [The] distinctive treatment that businesses receive at the hands of juries is a reflection of the jury’s translation of community values about the role of business in society.”

For all anxious senior citizens facing long-term care decisions, or boomers with parents in nursing homes today, take heart in yesterday’s verdict courtesy of a very wise California jury, which performed just intended: imposing maximum damages - totaling nearly $619 million - against one of the country’s largest nursing home chains, Skilled Healthcare, in a class action lawsuit for health code violations.  The case, on behalf of a class of some 32,000 patients, took seven months.  The company has 78 nursing facilities in seven states.  “’This is a really strong statement to Skilled Healthcare that they have to follow the law,’ said plaintiff's Attorney Michael Thamer, who delivered the closing arguments in the case and specializes in fighting corporate abuse. ‘They need to know that they are going to be held responsible.’”

One blog reported,

[The case] will continue as a judge decides whether to grant an injunction to trial attorneys and Humboldt County's district attorney, who are seeking a demand that the firm stop operating with fewer staff than mandated by the state.

[Plaintiff attorney] Thamer said the jury determined that the chain had engaged in “oppression, fraud or malice” in violating state staffing standards. He said the case was meant to underscore the importance of following state nursing home staffing laws, “because the consequences are so profound when they are not.”

Patricia McGinnis, executive director of the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, said she had never heard of such a substantial jury award in a nursing home case.

"It's not a verdict, it's a statement," she said. "If you're getting paid to provide the care, you've got to provide it."

Always important to keep in mind - civil juries really are the last line of defense against corporate abuse.