7 To 2 - The US Supreme Court Confirms That Federal Nursing Home Reform Act Creates Patient Enforceable Rights

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: K&L Gates
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Compliance, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Government Contracts, Procurement & PPP
• Author: Carla DewBerry, Myla R. Reizen, Natalia A. Nino and Nathan Fish
• Published date: 26 June 2023

On 8 June 2023, in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the rights set out in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA) can be enforced under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 by a resident of a publicly-owned nursing home. Claims recognized under ' 1983 can result in an award of damages and attorney's fees to the plaintiff that may not be otherwise available.

FNHRA is a federal statute enacted under Art. I, '8 of the Constitution (i.e., a Spending Clause). The Constitutional Spending Clause authorizes the federal "Legislature to lay and collect Taxes . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." FNHRA creates the right of a resident to be free from unnecessary chemical restraints and to be discharged or transferred only when certain preconditions are satisfied, but it does not specifically authorize litigation by resident to enforce these rights. The Supreme Court's ruling appears to put an end to the argument that federal rights enacted by Congress under the Spending Clause are outside the scope of "laws" enforceable under ' 1983. In so doing, the Court generally reaffirmed the ability of residents to bring federal lawsuits when someone "under color of state law violates 'any rights ... secured by the Constitution and laws.'"¹

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS

This case is important to publicly-owned nursing homes, patients and the federal government as evidenced by the large number of friend of the court briefs filed, including briefs by past and present members of the House and the Senate and senior officials of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.² The decision is significant to the federal government because it allows the federal government to leverage regulatory compliance by harnessing the power of patients as litigants who can enforce their congressionally conferred rights. It is important to publicly-owned nursing homes because it confirms a resident's power to institute litigation to address federally granted resident rights.

Although the Talevski decision concerned a county-owned nursing home and is limited to two discrete FNHRA provisions, this decision will almost certainly lead to additional ' 1983 litigation against other government-owned nursing home facilities, particularly in states with statutory caps on damages and attorneys' fee awards. As such, Talevski may not be the last time the courts deal with the scope of individual rights in the delivery of health care under ' 1983. Notably, on 20 June 2023, the Supreme Court remanded two cases for further consideration in light of the Talevski decision. Moreover, according to some...