ALEXANDER v. FAIR ACRES GERIATRIC CENTER et al, No. 2:2020cv02550 - Document 117 (E.D. Pa. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 6/22/23. 6/23/23 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALEXANDER v. FAIR ACRES GERIATRIC CENTER et al Doc. 117 Dockets.Justia.com improper basis for a § 1983 claim because the Court already concluded that the Amended Complaint sufficiently plead deliberate indifference to sustain the§ 1983 claims. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court sunnnarized Fair Acres' argument as follows: Fair Acres argues that Ms. Alexander's§ 1983 claims should be dismissed for two reasons. First, it argues that the federal statutes and regulations that Ms. Alexander alleges Fair Acres violated do not create an "individual right" that can be remedied through a § 1983 claim. Second, Fair Acres argues that Ms. Alexander has not alleged facts sufficient to support a claim that Fair Acres acted with "deliberate indifference," as required for a§ 1983 claim against a municipality. Alexander v. Fair Acres Geriatric Ctr., No. 20-cv-2550, 2021 WL 2138794, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2021). The Court concluded that the first argument was "without merit because ... it is directly at odds with the holding in Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers-Glen Hazel, 570 F.3d 520, 532 (3d Cir. 2009)." Alexander, 2021 WL 2138794, at *3. In Grammer, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals "concluded that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments ("FNHRA"), which sets out standards of care that medical facilities receiving federal funds must comply with, does 'confer individual rights that are presumptively enforceable through § 1983. "' Id. ( quoting Grammer, 570 F.3d at 532). As to the second argument, the Court concluded that Ms. Alexander alleged deliberate indifference because she showed that Fair Acres "continued [to adhere] to an approach that they [knew] or should [have] know[n] has failed to prevent tortious conduct by employees," and that the alleged deficiency was "closely related to the injury." Alexander, 2021 WL 2138794, at *3 (quoting Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 584 (3d Cir. 2003)). The Court concluded that "[ s ]uch a knowing disregard meets the deliberate indifference requirement for § 1983 liability." Id. Fair Acres avers that its motion for sunnnary judgment is predicated on different legal grounds than those asserted in its motion to dismiss, specifically, that understaffing cannot serve as a sufficient basis for Ms. Alexander's§ 1983 claims, not that Ms. Alexander's§ 1983 claims 4 are insufficiently plead. Fair Acres argues that in resolving the motion to dismiss, the Court only addressed whether the FNHRA created individual rights enforceable via§ 1983, and whether Ms. Alexander adequately pied deliberate indifference. It argues that the Court's conclusion that the FNHRA convey individual rights enforceable through§ 1983 does not resolve its present argument regarding understaffing because no statutory provision under the FNHRA conveys an individual right to specific staffing levels. Further, it notes that the Court narrowed its holding regarding the allegations of deliberate indifference, stating that "whether these allegations will be substantiated through discovery is another matter, but at this stage the Comi must deny Fair Acres' motion to dismiss." Alexander, 2021 WL 2138794, at *3. Here, the law of the case doctrine does not apply because the legal issues resolved at the motion to dismiss stage involved different legal questions than those asserted in Fair Acres' motion for summmy judgment, and the Court has yet to address whether understaffing can properly serve as a basis for Ms. Alexander's§ 1983 claim. II. Section 1983 Claims "42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a vehicle for imposing liability against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person of rights, privileges, or inununities secured by the Constitution and laws." Grammer, 570 F.3d at 525 (internal quotation marks omitted). Critical to the success of a§ 1983 claim is the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Robinson v. Fair Acres Geriatric Ctr., 722 F. App'x 194, 197 (3d Cir. 2018). The FNHRA "confer individual rights that are presumptively enforceable tlu·ough § 1983." Grammar, 570 F.3d at 532; accord Health & Hosp. Corp. ofMarion Cnty. v. Talevski, No. 21-cv-806, 2023 WL 3872515, at *3 (U.S. June 8, 2023) ("We hold that the two FNHRA provisions at issue here do unambiguously create §1983- 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
