Client Advisory
Additional Recent Client Advisories
NJ Appellate Division Affirms Fee Shifting Not Permitted Under the Nursing Home Responsibilities and Rights of Residents Act Following a Verdict for Plaintiff on Liability but Not Damages
The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial court’s ruling denying plaintiff’s motion for counsel fees under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Rights of Residents Act (“NHA”) in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills Healthcare Cent., LLC.
Though the jury had decided in the plaintiff’s favor on common-law negligence and found that defendants violated the NHA, the trial judge rejected plaintiff’s request for counsel fees and costs. The trial court explained that it could not make such an award under the NHA because the jury awarded damages exclusively under the common law claims, not the NHA.
The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court, finding that plaintiff was not a “prevailing party” under the NHA’s fee-shifting provision. To be a “prevailing party” under the NHA, the Appellate Division explained, a party must show: (1) a violation of the NHA; and (2) an award of damages under the NHA. Thus, while plaintiff had shown a violation of the NHA, the jury had not awarded damages under it.
The Appellate Division noted that the jury charges were clear that damages could be awarded separately under both theories of liability, and the jury specifically found no damages arising from the NHA claim. The Appellate Division also noted that the bases of the common law and NHA claims are each distinct, making an award of damages under one and not the other a possible and consistent result. Specifically, the plaintiff’s common law claim required proof of nursing home negligence, whereas the NHA claim required proof the plaintiff was deprived of a “safe and decent living environment” and “considerate and respectful care that recognizes [the resident’s] dignity and individuality.” The jury would therefore have a basis to conclude that the injuries and damages arose from the conduct alleged to establish common law negligence and not the conduct found to be in violation of the NHA.
Key Takeaways: This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring the elements and proofs related to plaintiff’s distinct theories of liability – here common law negligence and statutory liability – are clearly and separately enumerated throughout the trial, including through jury charges and verdict sheets. This also highlights the importance of focused discovery related to the specific elements of NHA violations and any claimed injury.