Graves v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc.

Decision Date11 April 2012
Docket NumberNo. 5–10–0033.,5–10–0033.
Citation360 Ill.Dec. 24,2012 IL App (5th) 100033,968 N.E.2d 103
PartiesPaul GRAVES, Special Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Graves, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER, INC., of Edwardsville, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dennis T. McCubbin, Claims Administration Services, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Robert H. Gregory, Law Office of Robert H. Gregory, P.C., East Alton, IL, for Appellee.

OPINION

Justice GOLDENHERSH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[360 Ill.Dec. 26]¶ 1 Plaintiff, Paul Graves, special administrator of the estate of Alfred Graves, deceased, filed suit against defendant, Rosewood Care Center, Inc., of Edwardsville, under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act (Act) (210 ILCS 45/3–601 to 3-612 (West 2002)), in the circuit court of Madison County. After an initial mistrial for a deadlocked jury, a second trial resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, defendant raises issues as to: (1) whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) whether the court erred in its issuance of an instruction on the definition of neglect, (3) whether the trial court erred in its issuance of instructions on regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving an instruction based on Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 5.01 (Supp. 2003) (hereinafter IPI Civil (Supp. 2003) No. 5.01)), and (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a bill from another nursing home. We affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 In April 2001, plaintiff had his elderly father, Alfred Graves, come to his residence to live. This allowed plaintiff and his wife to tender care to Alfred, who was 79 years old.

¶ 4 In January 2003, plaintiff and his wife took a weeklong vacation to Mexico. Plaintiff made arrangements for Alfred to stay at Rosewood for respite care during the trip. On January 17, 2003, Alfred was admitted to Rosewood. That night, Alfred fell in his room, fracturing his hip. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant under the Act (210 ILCS 45/3–601 (West 2002)).

¶ 5 Plaintiff subpoenaed several of the employees of Rosewood to testify at trial. Steve Marsho described his job as marketing to the senior community, primarily through hospitals. As part of his job, Marsho would gather preliminary informationor assess prospective residents of Rosewood. Marsho stated that Rosewood also advertised its ability to provide respite care.

¶ 6 On January 14, 2003, three days before Alfred's admission to Rosewood, Marsho went to plaintiff's residence in response to Alfred potentially receiving respite care at Rosewood during plaintiff's vacation. Marsho filled out a level-of-care assessment form, which was reviewed in detail during his testimony. Alfred was assessed at level 3 for several aspects of care, including bathing, dressing, continence, and social requirements. The form provided different descriptions of level 3 according to aspects of care, such as full staff assistance for bathing and requiring diaper products for incontinence. Alfred was diagnosed as level 2 for mobility, indicating he required standby assistance or supervision for transfers. Marsho “did not believe” he reviewed this level-of-care assessment with the director of nursing, but stated that he would be “amazed” if it did not reach nursing staff. Marsho testified that room rates were based on the level of assessment.

¶ 7 Jacqueline Hern, formerly a nurse administrator for Rosewood, testified that Marsho's level-of-care assessment would have been placed in Alfred's financial file. Nonetheless, Hern believed that the level-of-care assessment would have been communicated to the nursing staff.

¶ 8 Tanesha Childress, a licensed practical nurse, testified that she worked as the admitting nurse on the evening Alfred arrived. Childress reviewed a form she filled out on Alfred's entry. Childress testified that she never saw a level-of-care assessment form completed by Marsho, and, on review, Childress agreed that her assessment was inconsistent with Marsho's, particularly regarding whether Alfred required standby assistance for supervision and transfers. Childress could not recall where she got the information that would have led her to believe that Alfred was independent with transfers.

¶ 9 Childress also admitted that under a nursing services manual the admitting nurse was to complete a nursing admission checklist within 24 hours of admission of a resident. The first item on the checklist was for the resident to be oriented on how to use the call light and have it in reach. Childress marked on Alfred's chart that he arrived at 6 p.m., but that was the only note she made on his chart.

¶ 10 Nurse Nicole Jacks testified that she worked the night shift starting at 10 p.m. At 11 p.m., Jacks noted on Alfred's chart that, according to the outgoing nurse, Alfred refused to remove his coat or other clothing and was lying on top of his bed. The next note in the chart, marked 12:25 a.m., indicated that Alfred's roommate was in the hallway waving his hands and that Alfred was lying on the floor on his left side in a fetal position. Alfred reported pain in his left hip but denied having hit his head. Alfred stated he did not want to go to the hospital. A delayed entry on the chart indicated that Alfred's roommate indicated that Alfred fell hard. The entry also indicated that when Jacks reoriented Alfred to the call light she discovered the call light was not working and had it replaced.

¶ 11 Plaintiff testified that by late 2002 Alfred had developed significant balance problems. For instance, plaintiff testified that he had told Marsho that Alfred had slipped off the toilet a couple of times in December despite having a toilet seat extender. Plaintiff also testified that Alfred had suffered from dementia, with his short-term memory “completely gone,” and that Alfred was losing weight. Plaintiff described how he was reluctant to leave Alfred alone in the house, even to run to the store for milk, because he was afraid Alfred would hurt himself or accidentally set the house on fire. Plaintiff testified that he and his wife worked different shifts and that one of them was always around Alfred unless he was napping.

¶ 12 On cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that Alfred did not get a cane until 2002 and that he was capable of moving around the lower level of the house with the assistance of a cane. In particular, defendant points to the following exchange:

“Q. [Attorney for defendant:] Did you ever-did he ever call you to help him go to the bathroom?

A. No.

Q. Did he ever need any assistance while he lived there going to the bathroom?

A. As far as what?

Q. Did anybody—did either—you said you never helped him to go the bathroom. Did your wife ever go in and physically walk him to the bathroom? Did he need anybody to do that?

A. Not during the-not really. No.

Q. Okay. And, in fact, in the whole time that he lived in the home, he didn't need anybody to walk around with him and hold on to him while he was walking around, did he?

A. No. He was able to move with his cane.

Q. All right.

A. And he was familiar with the home.

Q. The most he ever needed was a cane.

A. Yes.”

¶ 13 Defendant also points to plaintiff's testimony at the end of cross-examination regarding Alfred's having slipped off the toilet seat in December 2002. Plaintiff testified:

“Q. [Attorney for defendant:] How is it that he was able to fall in your home, slip off the toilet?

A. We had a toilet seat extension,—

Q. Uh-huh.

A. —the little plastic—it looks like a big plastic toilet seat that sits on top of a seat to allow them to—to not have to sit down quite as far and apparently that slipped.

Q. I see.

A. Or he lost his balance getting up. I didn't—I didn't see him actually go down on either occasion.”

¶ 14 Plaintiff also testified Alfred had his own bedroom and went to the bathroom on his own, with an occasional diarrhea incident. Plaintiff and his wife regularly checked on Alfred but did not make it a point to get up every night and check on Alfred. Instead, plaintiff would get up and check on Alfred if he heard noises. Alfred never called for assistance to go to the bathroom.

¶ 15 Dr. Wolff, Alfred's physician, was called by defendant. Dr. Wolff testified that Alfred had been seen by a fellow member of his medical group, Dr. Masching, until moving to Florida. The records from Alfred's visit to the group on May 23, 2001, indicate that Alfred was alert and had no neurological deficits. On October 28, 2002, Dr. Wolff personally conducted a physical examination of Alfred and concluded he was elderly and appeared somewhat frail. Alfred was noted as alert but disoriented to place. Dr. Wolff testified that none of the notes indicated Alfred had used a device to help with walking and that his physical exam was consistent with not having a cane.

¶ 16 Dr. Wolff testified that Rosewood was a facility that he routinely rounded once a month. Dr. Wolff testified that the practice was for Rosewood to contact him shortly before admission of any of his patients and that he was contacted by Rosewood shortly before Alfred's admission. Dr. Wolff signed standing admission orders for Alfred's admittance to Rosewood. Dr. Wolff marked the form as “ad lib,” meaning Alfred could get up and walk around without restriction. He did not mark Alfred as “up with assist.” Dr. Wolff testified that his completion of the form meant that Alfred was not restricted to his bed, nor did he need a nurse to come down to the room and assist him out of bed.

¶ 17 On cross-examination, Dr. Wolff testified that the notes from the October 2002 examination indicated fairly substantial weight loss from 177 to 135 pounds since May 2001 and peripheral neuropathy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 20, 2012
    ...to the offense of kidnaping while armed with a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm. However, defendant was convicted of aggravated [360 Ill.Dec. 24] [968 N.E.2d 103]kidnaping while armed with a firearm, and the correct statutory citation for that offense is “720 ILCS 5/10–2(a)(6).” Thus,......
  • Maplewood Care, Inc. v. Arnold
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 9, 2013
    ...of treble damages for even negligent acts or omissions.” Graves v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc., 2012 IL App (5th) 100033, ¶ 24, 360 Ill.Dec. 24, 968 N.E.2d 103 (citing Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp., 111 Ill.2d 350, 367, 95 Ill.Dec. 510, 489 N.E.2d 1374 (1986)). Maplewood has shown no erro......
  • Graves v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 30, 2012

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT