Hauser v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc.: Expanding Plaintiff's Right To Damages

• Published date: 31 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Harris Beach
• Author: Mr Frank Muggia, Elliot A. Hallak, Brian D. Roy and Bryant J. Gordon

The Appellate Division of the Third Department issued its decision in Hauser v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., holding that the damages available to plaintiffs in cases asserting a private right of action against residential health care facilities under the Public Health Law were greater than the damages available for plaintiffs in wrongful death suits under the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL). The decision, issued in December 2021, affirmed a February 2021 decision by New York Supreme Court, Washington County in Butler v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., further supporting the legal theory that under Public Health Law ' 2801-d (1) a plaintiff is able to seek damages for the decedent's death in deviation from common law wrongful death and survivorship statutes, which do not permit damages to a person for her own death.

The court in Butler first touched upon this issue in a March 2020 decision. 'Turning now to the proverbial 'elephant in the room,' defendants contend that decedent cannot be awarded damages for his death under Public Health Law ' 2801-d because such an award is contrary to the law of this State.' Butler v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 50382(U), ' 5, 67 Misc. 3d 1204(A), 125 N.Y.S.3d 839 (Sup. Ct.). The court, having no state decisions to base their analysis, looked to a federal matter for guidance. In Banks v. Yokemick, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed the issue of whether a decedent may recover for her death under 42 USC '1983 - despite the fact that such cause of action is not recognized under New York state statute or common law. Banks v. Yokemick, 177 F. Supp. 2d 239, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

In Banks, the Southern District Court relied on the legislative intent of 42 USC ' 1983 as the deciding factor, stating that '[a] result [which] would recognize damages for infliction of severe pain and suffering short of death but extinguish the cause of action at the moment the victim expires is inherently illogical and incompatible with the deterrent purpose of '1983.' Banks v. Yokemick, at 251 .

The court in Butler concluded that similar to 42 USC '1983, Public Health Law '2801-d was designed to protect victims and to deter their negligent treatment. Butler v. Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., at ' 6, 67. New York State's wrongful death and survivorship...