South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida nursing home residents and their families are often forced into signing arbitration agreements with nursing homes, purporting to require that the claims be resolved in arbitration. However, such agreements are not always enforceable, as shown by one recent case.

According to the court’s opinion, an elderly woman was admitted to a nursing facility with a number of debilitating conditions. At some point, her daughter signed an arbitration agreement with the facility. She signed in the signature block for “Resident Representative/Agent Signature.” Evidently, the plaintiff’s mother was later transferred to a hospital for ulcers, gangrene, and sepsis. The mother died soon after. The daughter sued the facility alleging that her right leg had to be amputated and she suffered severe injuries because the nursing facility failed to provide proper care. She alleged negligent and willful misconduct, elder abuse, and wrongful death.

Specifically, the daughter sued the nursing facility as her mother’s successor in interest. She also sued the facility in her individual capacity for the wrongful death of her mother. The nursing facility argued that all the claims had to be resolved in arbitration, as stated in the arbitration agreement. An employee stated in a declaration that the mother and daughter were both present when the agreement was signed during the admission process and that the mother explicitly authorized the daughter to sign the agreement on the mother’s behalf. In contrast, the daughter claimed that she signed the agreement in an office after the admission process, and that her mother was not present. She also claimed that her mother never authorized her to sign any documents on her behalf.

Florida nursing homes and medical providers can be held accountable for the negligent or criminal conduct of their employees amounting to elder abuse. And, if successful, substantial compensation may be awarded to abused patients and their families. An alarming number of nursing home residents are victims of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, as well as neglect. In a recently released opinion by a state appellate court, a substantial jury verdict in favor of the estate of a sexually abused woman was addressed on appeal, and ultimately overturned.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was the estate of an elderly woman who was molested and raped by an employee of the defendant nursing home while under the home’s care. The plaintiff sued both the employee who committed the criminal acts, as well as the nursing home where the abuse occurred. At trial, the jury found that the nursing home was vicariously liable for the conduct of the employee, and the plaintiff was awarded a significant sum in damages, and the nursing home appealed.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the crimes, and also instructing the jury as such. Because an employer can only be held accountable for negligent or criminal acts committed by an employee while in the scope of their employment, the appellate court found that the lower court’s decision likely played a significant role to convince the jury that the nursing home was liable for damages. The higher court also ruled that the issue of whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment should not have been decided as a matter of law before trial, and instead should have been submitted to the jury as a question of fact. Because the issue wasn’t presented to the jury, the verdict was overturned and the case remanded for a new trial.