Beverly Enterprises-Virginia, Inc. v. Nichols

CourtVirginia Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHASSELL
CitationBeverly Enterprises-Virginia, Inc. v. Nichols, 441 S.E.2d 1, 247 Va. 264 (1994)
Decision Date25 February 1994
Docket NumberINC,ENTERPRISES-VIRGINI,No. 930080,930080
PartiesBEVERLY, T/A, etc. v. Steven C. NICHOLS, Administrator, etc. Record

Joseph T. McFadden, Jr., Norfolk (John A. Heilig; Heilig, McKenry, Fraim & Lollar, on brief), for appellant.

Moody E. Stallings, Jr., Virginia Beach (Gregory Kim Pugh; Stallings & Richardson, on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

HASSELL, Justice.

The primary issue we consider in this medical malpractice action is whether the plaintiff is required to present expert testimony to prove the defendant's negligence.

Steven C. Nichols, administrator of the estate of Blanche Allene Nichols, filed this wrongful death action against Beverly Enterprises-Virginia, Inc., t/a Lynn Shores Manor. Beverly Enterprises-Virginia operates a nursing home under the trade name Lynn Shores Manor in Virginia Beach. Blanche Nichols was a patient there until her death. Steven Nichols alleged in his amended motion for judgment that Blanche Nichols choked and died because Beverly Enterprises' employees failed to assist her with eating. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the administrator and fixed damages at $100,000. We awarded the defendant an appeal.

In accordance with well-settled principles, we will review the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the plaintiff, who comes to this Court with a favorable jury verdict, confirmed by the trial judge.

Blanche Nichols was diagnosed as having Alzheimer's disease. When she was no longer able to care for herself, her two sons, Steven Nichols and Gary R. Nichols, and their respective wives, provided primary care to her for approximately three years.

Blanche Nichols' mental capacity was impaired, and eventually she had to be restrained. She was unable to eat unassisted. In December 1988, Blanche Nichols choked while eating a pancake. Her daughter-in-law performed a "Heimlich maneuver," which forced the material from Blanche Nichols' throat. In January 1989, Blanche Nichols choked while eating. As a result of this incident, she was admitted to a hospital for approximately a week.

In December 1989, Gary and Steven Nichols concluded that they were unable to provide the care that their mother needed. Subsequently, she was admitted to Lynn Shores Manor on December 15, 1989.

Around the time of admission, Steven Nichols had a lengthy conversation with Jan Aubrey Marion, Jr., administrator of admissions at Lynn Shores Manor. Steven Nichols informed Marion that Mrs. Nichols could not eat unassisted. Steven Nichols also informed Marion of Mrs. Nichols' prior choking incidents. The nursing home's records that Marion completed, dated December 15, 1989, reveal that Mrs. Nichols required assistance when eating.

Kathy Nichols, Steven Nichols' wife, met with Marion around the time of admission and informed him that Blanche Nichols had choked twice previously. Marion informed Kathy Nichols that he would convey this information to the nursing home employees who would be working with Blanche Nichols.

On December 16, 1989, Kathy Nichols visited with Blanche Nichols "around lunchtime." While Kathy Nichols was visiting her mother-in-law in her room, an employee of Lynn Shores Manor entered the room with a tray of food and placed the tray on a "little roller table." No one from the nursing home, however, returned to assist Blanche Nichols with eating. Therefore, Kathy Nichols assisted her mother-in-law with her food.

Bonita Johnson, an employee at Lynn Shores, delivered a dinner tray to Mrs. Nichols on the evening of December 17, 1989. No one assisted Mrs. Nichols with her food. Phyllis L. Jones, a nurse's assistant helper, delivered a dinner tray to a woman who shared a room with Mrs. Nichols. No one had instructed Jones to assist Mrs. Nichols with her food. As Jones was helping Mrs. Nichols' roommate with her food, Jones noticed that "Mrs. Nichols didn't seem quite right." When Jones observed that Mrs. Nichols was sitting in her chair with her head turned sideways, she "ran immediately to get help."

Rebecca Taylor, a licensed nursing assistant, and Viola Fletcher, a licensed practical nurse, removed Mrs. Nichols from the chair and placed her on the bed. According to Taylor, Mrs. Nichols was dead when Taylor and Fletcher placed Nichols' body on the bed. 1

Fletcher knew that Mrs. Nichols "needed to be spoon-fed" and that someone "had to keep an eye" on her. Additionally, Fletcher testified that if Bonita Johnson left a tray of food in Mrs. Nichols' room, then that "would have been a mistake."

Dr. Faruk Presswalla, the deputy chief medical examiner for Tidewater, performed an autopsy on Blanche Nichols' body. He testified that the cause of Mrs. Nichols' death was asphyxia, commonly referred to as choking. Food had obstructed a portion of Mrs Nichols' air passage, and some of the food was lodged in her windpipe.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff sought to prove that the defendant was negligent because of its failure to inform its employees that Mrs. Nichols needed assistance when eating. The defendant contends that expert testimony is necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care and any breach thereof. Additionally, the defendant says that the plaintiff failed to "show what the standard of care required Lynn Shores to do with the information the Nichols family claim[ed] they gave about the prior choking incidents, or with the information from the hospital record that said that the patient needed to be fed all of her meals. The plaintiff did not put on an expert witness and properly qualify that witness as an expert on nursing home intake assessments or as an expert witness on how a patient is to be fed." The plaintiff, however, argues that under the facts and circumstances of this case, expert testimony is not necessary. We agree with the plaintiff.

Issues involving medical malpractice often fall beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience of a lay jury. Therefore, in most instances, expert testimony is required to assist the jury. Expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of damages. Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110, 113, 341 S.E.2d 194, 196 (1986); Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 653, 222 S.E.2d 783, 789 (1976).

In certain rare instances, however, as here, expert testimony is unnecessary because the alleged act of negligence clearly lies within the range of the jury's common knowledge and experience. For example, in Jefferson Hospital, Inc. v. Van Lear, 186 Va. 74, 41 S.E.2d 441 (1947), we approved the judgment...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
80 cases
  • Kellermann v. McDonough
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 5, 2009
    ...intervening cause, produces the event, and without which that event would not have occurred.'" Beverly Enterprises-Virginia v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 269, 441 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1994) (quoting Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124, 131, 267 S.E.2d 143, 147 (1980)); accord Williams v. Le, 2......
  • In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • September 18, 2020
    ...intervening cause, produces the event, and without which that event would not have occurred." Beverly Enterprises-Virginia v. Nichols , 247 Va. 264, 269, 441 S.E.2d 1, 4 (Va. 1994) (quoting Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp. , 221 Va. 124, 131, 267 S.E.2d 143, 147 (Va. 1980) ). That said, the......
  • Kellermann v. McDonough
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 17, 2009
    ...intervening cause, produces the event, and without which that event would not have occurred.'" Beverly Enterprises-Virginia v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 269, 441 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1994) (quoting Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124, 131, 267 S.E.2d 143, 147 (1980)); accord Williams v. Le, 2......
  • Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co. Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • February 6, 2018
    ..."beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience of a lay jury" generally require expert testimony. See Beverly Enters.–Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 441 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1994). In technical negligence cases, therefore, "[e]xpert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appro......
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • 1.5 Standard of Care and Expert Testimony
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Medical Malpractice Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 1 Statutes and Rules
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Hocker 240 demonstrated by qualifying for admission to practice in Virginia.--------Notes: [137] Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267, 441 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1994) (defendant nursing facility was aware that the patient was unable to feed herself and had experienced two prior ......
  • 7.6 Preparing Plaintiff’s Expert for Deposition
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Medical Malpractice Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 7 Depositions
    • Invalid date
    ...231 Va. 110, 113, 341 S.E.2d 194, 196 (1986); Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 653, 222 S.E.2d 783, 789 (1976).[74] Beverly Enters. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267, 441 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1994); accord Jefferson Hosp., Inc. v. Van Lear, 186 Va. 74, 41 S.E.2d 441 (1947).[75] Va. Code § 8.01-581.20.[76] Va......
  • 9.12 Jury Instructions
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Medical Malpractice Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 9 Trial
    • Invalid date
    ...Teh Len Chu v. Fairfax Emergency Med. Assocs., Ltd., 223 Va. 383, 290 S.E.2d 820 (1982).[94] E.g., Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 441 S.E.2d 1 (1994).[95] 143 Va. 789, 799, 129 S.E. 680, 683 (1925) (citations omitted).[96] 221 Va. 124, 131, 267 S.E.2d 143, 147 (1980).[97......
  • 5.2 Is an Expert Needed?
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Medical Malpractice Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 5 Expert Review
    • Invalid date
    ...to remove plaintiff's ovaries caused the need for an additional operation to remove the ovaries); Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 441 S.E.2d 1 (1994) (how to feed a patient in a nursing home).[3] Easterling v. Walton, 208 Va. 214, 156 S.E.2d 787 (1967).[4] 50 Va. Cir. 52 ......
  • Get Started for Free