Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Pauline Penny was a resident at SunBridge Care and Rehabilitation, a nursing home in Linden. From November 2000 to February 2001,Pauline fell 14 times at the nursing home. She did not suffer any major injuries but did suffer several minor bruises and cuts. On March 27, 2001, while being taken to a doctor’s visit, a SunBridge staff member left Pauline, unattended, in her wheelchair. The chair began to roll down the sidewalk. A witness observed that Pauline look very scared as the chair veered off the sidewalk, and Pauline was thrown into the parking lot. Over the next four days, Pauline was unable to talk � possibly because she bit her tongue in half when she fell. She was very agitated and moaned frequently. She died from her injuries four days after the accident. Pauline’s grandson, Bruce Elliott Penny, sued SunBridge and its corporate parent on behalf of Pauline’s estate. He alleged causes of action for vicarious liability, negligence, gross negligence, violation of resident’s rights and injury to the elderly. Penny alleged that SunBridge and its corporate parent were negligent in their budgeting process, meaning that because of inadequate budgetary funding, standards at the SunBridge facility were below an acceptable standard of care. The case went to trial, where Glenda Joiner-Rogers, a nurse and a Ph.D. holder, testified for Penny. The jury awarded Penny $1 million for Pauline’s pain, suffering and mental anguish. The jury also awarded $496,934 for disfigurement, $496,934 for physical impairment, and $6,132 for funeral and burial expenses. SunBridge appeals. SunBridge challenges Joiner-Rogers’ qualifications to render any opinion on the standard of care. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court explains that SunBridge’s challenge to Joiner-Rogers’ qualifications is based on Pack v. Crossroads Inc., 53 S.W.3d 505 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied), where an expert witness in a nursing home abuse case was found not to be qualified. Despite her lengthy credentials, ultimately the Pack court round that she did not have particular expertise in the field of nursing home standards of care. SunBridge contends that though Joiner-Rogers has many relevant qualifications, she does not have “any education, training, or experience in nursing home administration and management, including formulating, implementing, and enforcing policies and procedures, budgets, or staffing criteria. The court parses Joiner-Rogers’ r”sum” and concludes that she was qualified to testify as an expert in this case. The court observes that Joiner-Rogers’ qualifications indicate she has had more specialized experience and training in the study of nursing in a nursing home environment than did the expert in Pack. The court also holds that SunBridge waived its complaint as to Joiner-Rogers’ alleged inadequate responses during her deposition. She stated her opinions at the deposition, and she made the same assertions at trial. Since SunBridge did not object to the perceived deficiencies at the deposition, it cannot move to exclude her testimony at trial based on those deficiencies. The court next reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings on SunBridge’s negligence in its budget and staffing decisions. The court goes summarizes the testimony given by 11 different witnesses, including Penny, on budgeting, staffing levels and the impact of shortages of each. None of the witnesses for Penny, however, were experts, and the court concludes that issues of the adequacy of corporate funding of nursing home require expert testimony. “Without some guidance as to how much money a reasonable parent corporation in the business of operating nursing homes should have allocated to its subsidiary for staffing of the subsidiary’s nursing home facilities, the jury has no basis to establish a standard of care for Sun,” the court holds. The court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings on Pauline’s physical pain and mental anguish. That Pauline fell 14 times before her wheelchair accident is evidence that she experienced pain before her untimely death. The court says the contrary evidence � that Pauline’s advanced age may have made her less aware of any pain she may have suffered � is not enough to override the jury’s findings. Similarly, there was enough evidence that she experienced mental anguish after her wheelchair accident and before her death. The court then reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings on Pauline’s disfigurement and physical impairment following the wheelchair accident. In both cases, the court finds adequate evidence to establish the fact of disfigurement and physical impairment. But despite the fact of the injuries’ existence, the court finds that the amount of damages awarded is not supported by the evidence due to the relatively short length of time Pauline suffered. Both the disfigurement and the physical impairment lasted just four days. Consequently, the court orders a remittitur of $396,934 for the disfigurement award, and a remittitur of $346,934 for the physical impairment award. The court adds that a new trial will be awarded if the remittitur is not made within 15 days of the March 11 opinion. Finally, the court upholds the submission of the jury charge submitted in the case, as well as the award and calculation of prejudgment and post-judgment interest. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.