Background
Eighty-three-year-old Renee Sahar entered Care One at Wellington after a stroke. She had dementia, partial paralysis, impaired motor function, and required assistance with walking, toileting, dressing, and other daily activities. After residing there for thirty-five days, she fell during the night of April 6, 2016, fractured her hip, and underwent surgery.
Sahar’s estate sued for nursing negligence and violation of New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Rights of Residents Act. The jury rejected the negligence claim but unanimously found that Care One violated Sahar’s statutory right to a safe and decent living environment and considerate and respectful care. It awarded $525,000 in compensatory damages, and the final judgment—including interest, a Medicare lien, costs, and attorney fees—totaled $986,855.68. Care One appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that Care One qualified as a nursing home under the Act and that Sahar was a resident entitled to its protections. Care One was licensed as a long-term care facility, and Sahar’s indefinite, thirty-five-day stay constituted extended care even though she received rehabilitation and hoped eventually to return home. The record did not establish that Care One operated a legally defined subacute care unit.
The court also held that the estate properly pursued negligence and statutory residents’ rights claims based partly on the same evidence. The statutory claim was not an impermissible negligence-per-se theory, and the jury could find no deviation from the professional standard of care while still finding that Care One failed to provide a safe, decent, considerate, and respectful environment. Evidence supporting that verdict included delayed responses to call bells and toileting needs, inadequate supervision, failures concerning Sahar’s falls and resulting injury, delayed hospital transport, and an aide yelling at her. The jury instructions adequately prohibited double recovery.
The trial court properly excluded portions of the estate’s nursing expert’s deposition concerning three Care One records. Even if the documents qualified as business records, their descriptions of Sahar “suddenly” standing came from an unidentified, non-testifying source and were inadmissible hearsay. The expert had not relied on those documents. The court further upheld the refusal to give a Scafidi increased-risk instruction on the statutory claim and concluded the $525,000 compensatory award was not so disproportionate as to warrant remittitur or a new trial. It declined to consider Care One’s constitutional vagueness challenge because Care One had not notified the Attorney General.
Key Takeaways
- A patient receiving rehabilitation in a licensed long-term care facility may qualify as a nursing-home resident when the care is extended and continuing, even if the anticipated stay is not permanent.
- The same events may support both professional-negligence and statutory residents’ rights claims, provided the jury evaluates the theories separately and does not duplicate damages.
- A business record remains inadmissible when it contains embedded hearsay from an unidentified source and no separate hearsay exception applies.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that New Jersey’s statutory protections for nursing-home residents are not limited to permanent residents or traditional custodial care. Facilities cannot avoid the Act merely by labeling a patient’s placement as short-term rehabilitation when their licensure, operations, and the care actually provided fall within the statutory definition of a nursing home.
It also underscores that residents’ rights liability is distinct from malpractice liability. A jury may reject a claim that nursing staff breached a professional standard of care yet still award damages for failures to provide the safe, decent, dignified, and respectful environment required by the Act, with prevailing plaintiffs eligible for attorney fees and costs.