IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-00067-SCT
THE ESTATE OF HAMILTON PETER
GUILLOTTE, BY AND THROUGH EDITH
JORDAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
HAMILTON PETER GUILLOTTE
v.
DELTA HEALTH GROUP, INC., DIXIE WHITE
HOUSE NURSING HOME, INC. AND
PENSACOLA HEALTHTRUST, INC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2007
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JERRY O. TERRY, SR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SUSAN NICHOLS ESTES
ANTHONY LANCE REINS
DONALD RAFFERTY
DOUGLAS BRYANT CHAFFIN
GALE NELSON WALKER
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: NICOLE COLLINS HUFFMAN
LYNDA CLOWER CARTER
DANIEL E. DIAS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND
REMANDED IN PART - 03/19/2009
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE GRAVES, P.J., RANDOLPH AND PIERCE, JJ.
GRAVES, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This is a case regarding the treatment of a resident at the Dixie White House Nursing
Home (Dixie White House) in Harrison County, Mississippi. Following the resident’s death,
the plaintiff sued the defendants for allegedly mistreating the resident and causing him to
suffer injury and death. The Circuit Court of Harrison County granted summary judgment
to the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals from this judgment.
FACTS
¶2. On November 13, 2001, Hamilton Peter Guillotte was admitted to Dixie White House,
where he remained until September 21, 2002. During this period of time, Guillotte was
hospitalized on several occasions. He left Dixie White House for the last time on September
21, 2002 and died two days later. On December 30, 2002, Edith Jordan, individually and as
the administratrix of Guillotte’s estate, initiated a lawsuit against the defendants asserting
negligence, medical malpractice, malice and/or gross negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, a statutory survival claim, and a statutory wrongful-death claim. Jordan named as
defendants Delta Health Group, Inc. (Delta Health Group), Dixie White House, Pensacola
Healthtrust, Inc. (Pensacola Healthtrust), Scott Bell, Dennis Forsythe, William Trevvett, John
Does 1 through 10, and Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 as to Dixie White House. The
record reflects that Delta Health Group is a corporate entity that has had an ownership or
controlling interest in Dixie White House since at least June 2000. The record also reflects
that Pensacola Healthtrust entered into a lease agreement with Dixie White House and took
over the operations of the nursing home from Delta Health Group in March 2002. Pensacola
Healthtrust was the corporate entity operating Dixie White House at the time of Guillotte’s
2
death. Scott Bell is the licensee for Dixie White House. Dennis Forsythe and William
Trevvett were administrators of Dixie White House during the time Guillotte resided there.
¶3. After the initial pleadings were filed, discovery took place from 2003 until 2007. In
December 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment to Dixie White House. In March
2007, the trial court dismissed Bell, Forsythe, and Trevvett from the action. In July 2007,
the remaining named defendants, Delta Health Group and Pensacola Healthtrust (hereinafter
the “Defendants”) deposed Jordan’s medical experts – Dr. Timothy Hammond and Luanne
Trahant, RN. In August 2007, Jordan deposed the Defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Robert
Kelly.
¶4. On August 13, 2007, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
that Jordan’s failure to identify by name the caregivers at Dixie White House who allegedly
breached the standard of care was fatal to her negligence claims. Jordan filed a response to
the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, citing deposition testimony demonstrating
that nursing home staff breached the standard of care in caring for Guillotte. After hearing
arguments from both parties, the trial court granted the Defendants’ summary judgment
motion on September 18, 2007. Jordan timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied after a hearing. Jordan then timely appealed to this Court.
ANALYSIS
¶5. On appeal, Jordan argues that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment
in part because it misinterpreted Estate of Finley v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation, 933
So. 2d 1026 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The Defendants assert that the trial court properly
granted summary judgment based on the holding in Finley and because Jordan failed to
3
present evidence of negligence on the part of Dixie White House staff or the corporate
entities owning and operating Dixie White House.
¶6. The standard of review for a trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo. See,
e.g., Germany v. Denbury Onshore, LLC, 984 So. 2d 270, 275 (Miss. 2008) (citations
omitted). When deciding to grant or deny summary judgment, a court must review the record
before it and take all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
The trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment will be affirmed if the record before
the trial court shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. Viewing all the evidence in the light most
favorable to Jordan, this Court finds that summary judgment was improperly granted as to
Jordan’s claims that individual nursing home staff members were negligent in caring for
Guillotte. However, summary judgment was properly granted as to Jordan’s claims that the
Defendants were negligent in failing to hire an adequate number of staff, failing to properly
supervise their staff, failing to properly train their staff, and failing to adopt adequate
guidelines, policies, and procedures for documenting resident care.
I. Whether Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted as to Claims that
Individual Nursing Home Staff Members Were Negligent.
A. Jordan’s Answer to Interrogatory Number Eleven
¶7. The Defendants argue on appeal that Jordan cannot maintain that the Defendants are
liable for the negligence of individual nursing home staff members because of Jordan’s
answer to an interrogatory. When reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, this
Court takes into account all evidentiary matters, including responses to discovery requests.
4
Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., 920 So. 2d 479, 483 (Miss. 2006) (citing Aetna Cas. & Sur.
Co. v. Berry, 669 So. 2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996)). However, the standard of review remains the
same – all the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Price,
920 So. 2d at 483.
¶8. The interrogatory in question is Interrogatory No. 11, which states:
11. In your Complaint you allege the Defendants failed to discharge their
obligations of care to Hamilton Peter Guillotte resulting in catastrophic
injuries, etc. including those conditions detailed in subparagraphs
thereunder. As to each allegation, please specifically state the
following:
(a) Each action or inaction which you contend supports your
allegations;
(b) The name, address and telephone number of each individual you
contend supports each allegation; and
(c) By way of request for production please produce a copy of any
document you contend supports each allegation.
Jordan responded to the interrogatory with the following answer:
(a) Objection. This Interrogatory is unduly burdensome in that there are
many acts and/or omissions alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint that caused
multiple injuries to Hamilton Guillotte. This information is found in
the medical records of Mr. Guillotte and will be further discovered by
depositions in the course of this action. . . .
Without waiving objections, Plaintiff has already stated to
Defendants and to the Court that the injuries sustained by Mr. Guillotte
are of a nature that they evolved over a period of time and were not
necessarily directly caused by one specific person’s actions or inactions
on a specific date. Plaintiff’s complaint makes it very clear that the
poor care received at Defendants’ nursing home was a result of
corporate policies and a systemic program of understaffing the facility
and failing to provide adequate training and supervision and hiring of
staff. Defendants created an environment in which their employees
could not possibly perform to the required standards due to shortages
of staff and basic support. Thus, the named Defendants are directly
responsible for all breaches in the standards of care provided to
Hamilton Guillotte. Plaintiff does not attempt to lay personal blame for
the systemic failures of Defendants’ nursing home on any particular
5
nonmanagement employee or former employee (i.e. floor nurses,
certified nurses’ aides, nurses’ aides, housekeepers, maintenance
workers or grounds keepers, cooks, dietary aides, etc.)[.] It is
Plaintiff’s position, based on medical records and information obtained
in discovery that nonmanagement employees could not provide the
appropriate standard of care to Hamilton Guillotte because of the
actions of the named Defendants. In other words, the named
Defendants caused the breaches in the standard of care by any of their
nonmanagement employees and are responsible for such breaches.
This interrogatory also calls for expert opinion testimony based
upon a review of the full medical record, Defendants’ discovery
responses, and deposition testimony of employees of Defendants and
other witnesses.
¶9. Based on Jordan’s answer, she appears to have been pursuing claims based on the
negligence of Dixie White House staff and based on the negligence of the Defendants. The
answer itself makes clear that she claimed that individual caregivers could not possibly meet
the standard of care, thus indicating that those caregivers breached the standard of care. At
the same time, she also asserted that the Defendants were responsible for establishing
corporate policies and creating the systemic environment in which Guillotte was allegedly
mistreated. Jordan’s answer shows that she is pursuing two theories of negligence, which
are not inconsistent with one another. This Court finds that Jordan’s answer to Interrogatory
No. 11, particularly when viewed in the light most favorable to Jordan, does not preclude
Jordan from pursuing claims based on the negligence of nursing home staff in addition to
claims based on the negligence of the Defendants.
¶10. Although we reach this conclusion, we will nevertheless briefly address the
Defendants’ argument regarding Finley. Finley, 933 So. 2d 1026. The Defendants argue
that, based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Finley, Jordan’s answer limits her to
pursuing claims of corporate negligence and forecloses her from pursuing claims based on
6
the negligence of individual nursing home staff members. Id. In Finley, which is also a
nursing home negligence case, the defendants requested that the plaintiff admit that each
individual caregiver acted within the standard of care. Id. at 1028. The plaintiff filed a
nonresponsive answer and then filed an amended answer with leave of the trial court, which
the trial court found nonresponsive. Id. at 1029-32. The trial court then deemed the
plaintiff’s nonresponsive, amended answer to be an admission. Id. at 1031. In so doing, the
trial court found that the plaintiff had admitted that no individual caregivers breached the
standard of care. Id. at 1028, 1031. Because the plaintiff also failed to present any evidence
of corporate negligence, summary judgment was granted. Id. at 1031, 1035-38.
¶11. The Defendants assert that, because Jordan’s answer to Interrogatory No. 11 is very
similar to the first, nonresponsive answer to the request for admission in Finley, Jordan’s
answer precludes her from claiming that individual nursing home staff members were
negligent. This Court does not agree with the Defendants’ argument. In Finley, when the
plaintiff’s amended answer was found to be nonresponsive, the trial court deemed the request
for admission admitted. Because of the nature of the admission, the plaintiff could no longer
argue that the defendants were liable for the negligence of the nursing home caregivers. In
this case, Jordan never admitted – through her answer to Interrogatory No. 11 or otherwise
– that no caregivers breached the standard of care. Therefore, we find that Jordan’s answer
to Interrogatory No. 11 cannot prevent her from pursuing claims based on the negligence of
individual nursing home staff members.
B. Evidence of Negligence of Dixie White House Staff
7
¶12. Since this Court finds that Jordan’s answer to Interrogatory No. 11 does not preclude
her from asserting claims against the Defendants based on the negligence of individual
nursing home staff members, we will now address the Defendants’ argument that Jordan
failed to present evidence of specific breaches of the standard of care by specific caregivers.
A de novo review of the record and of the depositions of Jordan’s medical experts in
particular demonstrates that there is ample evidence of specific breaches of the standard of
care by specific caregivers with respect to Guillotte’s care.
¶13. The deposition testimony of Dr. Timothy Hammond and Luanne Trahant, RN, include
evidence that the nursing home staff at Dixie White House breached the standard of care in
providing care to Guillotte. Both Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant testified that the failings
of the nursing home staff led Guillotte to suffer injury, and ultimately death. The evidence
of negligence provided by Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant fell into six main areas of care:
nutrition and hydration, skin wounds, urinary tract infections, falls, contractures, and
diabetes. Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant also testified about documentation deficiencies,
which affected several different areas of care.
Nutrition and Hydration
¶14. Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant testified that Guillotte was not provided sufficient
nutrients and water by nursing home staff. Dr. Hammond testified that
they [i.e., the Defendants] did have a system, and part of the system
worked. They [i.e., staff members] reviewed the weight loss and took certain
measures. The problem was they did not follow through and the patient
continued to have horrible nutrition.
In other words, even though they [i.e., the Defendants] have a policy
and procedure that starts a process, there is no one to see to it that policy and
8
procedure continues, to continue that process and have feedback if the initial
response is not adequate. . . .
[T]hey did not realize they were not correcting the problem because the
nutrition parameters remained terrible and, in fact, deteriorate[d] throughout
the hospitalization. So the policy is inadequate in that it doesn’t allow them
to adequately assess the patient’s weight. . . .
The issue is that the patient has continuing deterioration and needs
nutritional parameters, which puts him at risk of other complications which he
suffers, and he does not have an adequate assessment and reassessment and
care-plan to continue to deal with it, and he has continued malnutrition and
dehydration, which is ongoing and increasing in severity.
It is one thing to have some policy in place, but if it doesn’t give you
the assessment and delivery of care, it doesn’t do the job.
He also testified as to the proper standard of care, which would have been to follow the
Defendants’ policy, conduct “[a]ssessment, reassessment and care-plan to make sure you got
the initial parameters[] at least up to baseline,” and “[a]sk[] for help. They should have been
telling the doctor that his weight was still below the ideal weight.” Dr. Hammond testified
that although Guillotte was “losing weight and had poor nutrition when he came in,” the
nursing home staff “should have done a more thorough assessment and should have noticed
[his low albumin levels].” Dr. Hammond also stated that “[t]he standard of care would have
been met if they either corrected the nutritional parameters or documented that they had
exhausted all options.” He added later that the nursing home staff should have recommended
that more laboratory work be performed in order to improve Guillotte’s albumin levels.
¶15. As to the injury suffered by Guillotte, Dr. Hammond testified that he was
“malnourished several months into his admission.” He then clarified that Guillotte’s “weight
really begins to fall four months after he gets there . . . So we have good evidence of
malnutrition in April of 2002.” He also stated that Guillotte’s prealbumin levels “suggested
his nutrition was better at the start of his admission and then plummets.” Dr. Hammond
9
testified that although Guillotte was “losing weight and had poor nutrition when he came in,”
the nursing home staff “should have done a more thorough assessment and should have
noticed [his low albumin levels].” When asked whether the failures concerning Guillotte’s
nutrition resulted in nutritional deficits, Nurse Trahant testified that they
resulted in a failure for the staff to change the plan to address his nutritional
problems or skin problems. The care plan is what helps drive care. That’s
why we do it. We make an assessment; we develop a plan. We implement the
plan. If it doesn’t work, we re-evaluate it. They didn’t give Mr. Guillotte the
opportunity in those areas for them to determine if the plan was or wasn’t
working. It was real – in those months it was very haphazard, in my opinion.
It was a hit and miss type of care and he suffered for it.
Nurse Trahant testified that during the period from March to May 2002, nursing home staff
failed to intervene with respect to Guillotte’s nutrition by not
providing an accurate picture of his nutritional status by virtue of the intake
and output, especially when there was a change in his condition when he came
back to the facility on April 10th. They knew he had had problems with
anemia; they knew he had had blood transfusions. They knew there were
problems with mobility. Obviously, there were issues with nutrition at that
point because he was on Megace, so that’s first and foremost, is that they know
what’s going in and what’s coming out so they can manage it. . . . And that’s
obvious from his drop in albumen [sic] that more likely than not he wasn’t
consuming what he was supposed to. His albumen [sic] level dropped to a
dangerously low level.
¶16. As to documentation deficiencies related to nutrition, Nurse Trahant testified that
there were discrepancies in the ADL (activities of daily living) records in March and April
2002. The main discrepancy was that the ADL records indicated that Guillotte was
consuming 100 percent of his meals in March and April 2002, whereas on April 25, 2002,
a comprehensive assessment indicated that Guillotte had appetite problems and did not finish
his meals. Nurse Trahant stated that
10
it’s very concerning to me that there’s that much inconsistency when they [i.e.,
nursing home staff] knew from the time he was admitted that he was a
nutritional risk and that they were going to have to be more vigilant as far as
his nutrition area was concerned. And then, of course, once the wounds
developed, it was even more important for that to happen and the assessments
to be accurate, the team to be all informed of what’s going on. So it was very
concerning.
Also, Nurse Trahant found that, because the nursing home’s documentation stated that
Guillotte was consuming 100 percent of his meals, the use of a PEG (percutaneous
endoscopic gastrostomy) tube seemed to be “a severe and quick decision.” She stated that
[t]hey [i.e., nursing home staff] say on April 30th he’s having trouble
swallowing. He’s evaluated by speech therapy. And then at the same time
that they’re calling her to evaluate him, they’re asking the son to consent to a
PEG tube. And that all occurred on May 3rd. It just seems very acute. Based
on my experience, there is usually some sort of longer term problem going on
than a week before you decide to offer someone a PEG tube, based on the fact
that the documentation that we talked about earlier does say he’s had problems
with his appetite, that he’s ordered an appetite stimulant; he leaves portions of
his meal uneaten, to me, seems to be where those inconsistencies are. And I’m
not sure all the staff members were aware or apprized [sic] of the situation.
She agreed that “some of the documentation would support the consideration of a PEG, but
the daily documentation doesn’t support it.”
¶17. Nurse Trahant testified that the standard of care regarding the documentation of
Guillotte’s nutrition required that the care plan be updated as to
[w]hy he wasn’t eating. Who had identified that he wasn’t eating. . . . What
types of interventions were being tried? Was he on a special dining program?
. . . Sometimes you have to change sensory stimulation. . . . So I would have
expected them to try to figure out, number one, where are we having the
problem? Is it environmental? He had poor teeth, they knew that. He had
broken teeth. He had – they consistently documented on his oral – the status
of his teeth. So is it that he had – they were painful; did he need some type of
dental consult? But I mean, none of that is in there.
11
She noted that the Dixie White House staff failed to consistently document Guillotte’s
nutritional status.
¶18. Regarding the management of Guillotte’s hydration, Dr. Hammond was asked whether
“there is a balancing act that has to be done because you have to address their [i.e., patients’]
volume overload issues as well as the dehydration issues.” In response, he testified that
[y]es, it is a balancing act, but we [i.e., the nursing home staff] fell off the
trapeze with no net. You are allowed to go a bit one way or the other, but to
be at 5 and 8.7 liters deficit in water, like I say, you fell off the trapeze with no
net. You are so outside the balancing act, it is so outrageous and gross that it
is just horrendous.
He also testified that upon reviewing laboratory results for Guillotte’s hydration levels,
nursing home staff should have “look[ed] at the patient.” He added that “it’s not only the
physician, skilled nursing should know it, a nutritionist seeing these, a dietician seeing these
should know. There are a number of professionals involved that should see this and say, ‘We
have a problem.’” He testified that the nursing home staff should have made
“recommendations to a physician either to increase fluid intake, or if they don’t know what
to do, it’s okay to ask for help. Ask the doctor to reassess. We have these abnormal labs,
take another look. We have a consistent abnormality, please take another look.” Dr.
Hammond testified that if Guillotte had been given more free water, his dehydration ratios
would have normalized. As for the injury suffered by Guillotte, it should be noted that Dr.
Hammond testified that the immediate cause of death was “myocardial infarction, due to the
consequences of sepsis, due to the consequences of dehydration.”
¶19. Nurse Trahant also testified about the failure of the nursing home staff to provide
adequate hydration to Guillotte:
12
[T]he dietician had recommended, from the day Mr. Guillotte went into
the nursing home, that he receive twenty-five hundred and ninety-one (2,591)
ccs of fluid. Now, although there were not any intake and output records that
I could find until he received his PEG tube in May, once they [i.e., nursing
home staff] began documenting his intake and output in May and all through
September, it was very evident to me that they consistently were not providing
him with the amount of fluids that had been recommended by the dietician.
And, in fact, the recommendation actually went up in June of ’02 to twenty-
eight hundred and sixty-seven (2,867) ccs. And that recommendation was in
place until the end of July when they recommended twenty-seven hundred and
forty (2,740) ccs, which is almost three liters of fluid a day. And that
recommendation remained in place until he left the nursing home in
September. And just from reviewing the intake and output, that was
consistently not met, even though the nursing home knew he had been
hospitalized more than once for urinary tract infection and dehydration and
how important it is to give someone the proper amount of fluid to help
minimize or even prevent those problems.
Nurse Trahant stated that because the nursing home staff members were aware of the factors
that predisposed Guillotte to dehydration, they had a duty “[t]o provide him with pressure
relief, hydration, nutrition consistent with his conditions, and to monitor him meticulously
because of those conditions.” She added that the nursing home staff “failed to notify Dr.
Weaver that they were consistently not providing him with enough hydration, although in
many instances . . . [t]hey knew exactly how much he was taking in, so that Dr. Weaver
could have been afforded an opportunity to figure out why is it that he couldn’t take it in or
he needed to take in hydration in some other form to help assist him with those needs.”
Skin Wounds
¶20. Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant also addressed Guillotte’s skin wounds, some of
which are related to the failure of the nursing home staff to provide adequate nutrition and
hydration. Dr. Hammond testified that “[w]hat I’m critical of is the fact that the dehydration
and malnutrition predisposes him to infections. I believe if they had given him better
13
hydration and nutrition, he would have been less prone.” When asked if Guillotte would not
have suffered skin breakdown if a PEG tube had been inserted earlier, Dr. Hammond stated
that
if they [i.e., nursing home staff] had acted appropriately, reassessed him and
gotten adequate nutrition through the PEG tube, then it would have helped,
yes. I believe it would have prevented the skin problems and he would have
healed them faster, and it would have put him at less risk for the sepsis that led
to his death. And the dehydration issue goes along with the nutrition issues on
that.
Dr. Hammond also stated that
I believe they [i.e., nursing home staff] did not adequately assess, reassess,
care-plan and treat predisposing causes of dehydration and nutrition. And that
was particularly important because they should have been on notice that this
is a patient who had a lot of predisposing factors. Then, they failed to
adequately document and act on these lesions. How can you look after lesions
when you have conflicting reports of how many there are and where they are?
¶21. As to Guillotte’s bedsores, Dr. Hammond testified that in order for the nursing home
staff to meet the standard of care, “one of the major interventions is to realize there is a
problem and ask for help.” When asked what the standard of care required the nursing home
staff to do with respect to turning and repositioning Guillotte, Dr. Hammond replied that
“[t]here is no one right answer. It is like we discussed: You make a good initial assessment
and then you reassess and make the appropriate adjustments.” Dr. Hammond reiterated that
[w]hat they [i.e., nursing home staff] were doing wasn’t working. I’m
not saying they used this type of dressing and they should have used that type
of dressing. There are lots of ways to do it. Many of the choices they made
were reasonable first attempts. But, again, it is an iterative process. You have
got to assess, reassess, look for the failure of medical therapy or the onset of
complications. . . .
What I’m saying is, they [i.e., nursing home staff] don’t deliver the
outcome, and they do not document that they are aware – they don’t
14
adequately document that they are aware of that. They should have been
asking for more help.
When asked if he was “of the opinion that all of his [i.e., Guillotte’s] wounds were
preventable,” Dr. Hammond stated “[y]es, I am.”
¶22. Nurse Trahant testified that the nursing home failed to properly provide care to
Guillotte for his skin problems in that
[t]here was no positioning schedule. Placing undue pressure on the sacral or
coccyx area by sitting up in a wheelchair or geri chair can certainly promote
skin breakdown. Once the wounds developed, beginning in April of ’02, the
documentation still does not support consistent repositioning and turning. In
fact, there are nursing assessments that are done on a weekly basis during this
time. There’s a treatment section that outlines repositioning and what type of
pressure devices they’re using, what type of positioning devices and schedules
they’re using. And a lot of those, many of those are blank in that area. At the
same time, on the CNA’s [i.e., certified nursing assistant’s] record there is
either no documentation or inconsistent documentation for turning or how
often they’re turning. And there’s a sheet that comes behind those ADL [i.e.,
activities of daily living] records that outlines nursing rehabilitation. There are
all sorts of different areas for them to document on, and those are consistently
blank throughout the – throughout the stay.
Nurse Trahant stated that it was her opinion that the standard of care required the nursing
home staff to have taken steps to prevent pressure ulcers, including creating a turning
schedule and documenting it. She testified that if preventive steps had been taken,
“[c]ertainly it would have improved the likelihood that other [pressure ulcers] were not going
to develop or the ones that were there were not going to get worse by placing pressure on
them.” Nurse Trahant stated that Guillotte’s skin wounds were also a result of the fact that
“he did not receive enough hydration,” in addition to the fact that turning and repositioning
were “not consistently being done.” She also stated that, in her opinion, nursing home staff
did not follow the appropriate policies regarding hydration and pressure ulcers.
15
¶23. Dr. Hammond also testified about the inconsistent documentation of Guillotte’s skin
lesions. He stated that
if you look at the medical center records, there are wounds documented
on admission on essentially every admission. They are documented by the ER
physicians, by the nursing admissions, by the M.D. admission, often discharge
notes, and there are moderate multiple wounds on one occasion which leads
to referral to the wound care center.
What we find on the home, the good part about the hospital records is
that many are done on the day of admission or the day of discharge, it gives us
a fixed point. The interesting part is when you go to the nursing home, some
of the lesions overlap. But many of these lesions are different to the ones they
are seeing in the medical center and even are not internally consistent.
He added that
given that there are lesions present each time the patient comes into Garden
Park Medical Center, and some of them are not present on discharge, I have
to say the vast majority of the lesions occurred at the nursing home. I also
have to say that the nursing home documentation is conflicting. It is often
delayed, which means I can’t determine whether the home thinks they
happened when he came in, and not only is it internally conflicting, it is
conflicting with the wound care center in the hospital.
He further testified that the failure to properly document Guillotte’s lesions caused him injury
him because “I think it is very hard to adequately deal with lesions when you are uncertain
how many there are, what they are and what the status is.”
¶24. Nurse Trahant also testified about the documentation deficiencies regarding
Guillotte’s skin conditions:
After he developed wounds in . . . April of ’02, I’ve got two return body
assessments when he came back from the hospital, but there were no weekly
skin assessments showing stages, sizes that were consistently and accurately
documented during that time. . . . [T]here were entries, but it would be, you
know, stage #3 to the sacrum, no size, no wound bed description, drainage.
And then they [i.e., nursing home staff] would move on, and they might
document another wound and actually put a size, but nothing else. So they
were just – they were very incomplete and very much below standard as far as
16
keeping up with his skin condition. . . And even the entries I found in the
nurses’ notes were not complete based on both [nursing home] policy and
accepted practice and assessment of pressure ulcers.
Nurse Trahant criticized the nursing home staff for not being more proactive with regard to
Guillotte’s skin condition:
I’m of the opinion that they were very reactive in his care in regards to his
skin. The turning and repositioning, the consistent documentation of that, the
consistent documentation of providing his fluids, his food, should have been
done way before his skin broke down. Once his skin broke down, then in June
we do have some documentation of turning and repositioning, but it’s not
consistent throughout. And he does develop other wounds, foot wounds, hip
wounds.
Urinary Tract Infections
¶25. Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant addressed Guillotte’s urinary tract infections. Dr.
Hammond testified that the nursing home staff “could have also put surveillance in place to
look for urinary infections earlier.” Dr. Hammond was asked what the nursing home staff
should have done to meet the standard of care and he responded that they should
treat the underlying problems, malnutrition and dehydration, and . . . monitor.
If you have a man that comes in with a history of urinary tract infections, has
the current urinary tract infection, why don’t we have a better urine outline?
Why aren’t we recording some better urine parameters to make sure that we’re
not missing anything?
¶26. Nurse Trahant testified about the failings of the nursing home staff with respect to
Guillotte’s urinary tract infections:
[H]e was not being provided with the hydration that he would have needed to
help flush out the urinary tract, especially in someone with an enlarged
prostate and problems with urinary retention. It’s interesting that when he
came into the facility, while he was being toileted and having incontinent
episodes, he didn’t suffer from a UTI from October 26th until May of ’02. The
presence of the catheter increased his risk. I think it would have been
important for the staff to evaluate, if they would return him to his toileting
17
program, see if having the catheter out affected any of the wounds or the
ability to take care of those wounds. And if not, leave it out. They knew he
was at risk. He had not had problems before. In my opinion there was no
reason to have the catheter if he could have been maintained without it or even
with an external catheter.
She further testified that “[j]ust based on the fact that he didn’t have any [UTIs] from 10/26
until May, just from my nursing opinion would be that [sic] it was more likely than not the
presence of the catheter at that point, without giving you a medical causation. He certainly
was at increased risk with the Foley [catheter].” Nurse Trahant was of the opinion that the
standard of care required that the nursing home attempt removal of the Foley catheter and try
a bladder continent program or attempt an external catheter instead of leaving him with the
Foley catheter. She testified that
what the standard requires is that a person who is assessed as losing bladder
function, and that’s straight from the Federal regulations, that the staff is going
to attempt to restore as much as possible without catheterization. So it’s still
the staff’s responsibility to talk with the doctor, explain what they want to do,
and remove it and try a program. Instead, when they did do the bladder
assessment for bladder program on him on June 4th of 2002, they just simply
documented that he had a Foley catheter. And there was no assessment of his
bladder function at that point, what could be done, if anything, if the doctor
was notified, if the doctor did agree, didn’t agree.
¶27. As for documentation deficiencies related to Guillotte’s urinary tract infections, Nurse
Trahant testified that “the hygiene practices of the staff are not well documented in the
records. The ADL record does not account for when bowels were taking place, providing
the consistent perineal care, especially once he got the catheter. It’s lacking in
documentation as far as them consistently providing that care.”
Falls
18
¶28. Both of Jordan’s experts also testified about the falls that Guillotte suffered at Dixie
White House. Dr. Hammond stated that after Guillotte suffered a fall on October 27, 2001,
the nursing home staff failed to meet the standard of care by failing to “assess, reassess and
care-plan” and by failing to take steps to intervene to try to prevent subsequent falls. Dr.
Hammond testified that “I think the pattern of being found on the floor and not making new
interventions, particularly with the wheelchair, does breach the standard of care.” He added
that “[t]hey [i.e., nursing home staff] should have reassessed him and said, now we have
multiple incidents and we have to protect this man, whether it is more staffing or whether we
provide changes in the wheelchair, wheelchair aids.”
¶29. Nurse Trahant also testified about Guillotte’s falls: “My specific problem was in April
of ’02; they [i.e., nursing home staff] had an order that was put into place to keep him safe,
and it was not implemented the day that he fell, April 30th.” She further testified that on
April 26th, the nursing home received an order for Mr. Guillotte to be up in the
geri chair. The specific reasoning for that was because he was having a lot of
positioning problems in the wheelchair, and he had already fallen out of the
wheelchair March 1st because of these positioning problems. Yet, based on
the nurses’ notes, on April 30th, when he fell, it was documented that he fell
face forward out of the wheelchair. And my specific criticism is if they have
the order, he should have been in the geri chair at that point.
Nurse Trahant also had a criticism of the fact that there was
a failure to update in relationship to his falls. They [i.e., nursing home staff]
put the March 1, 2002 fall on there, and indicated that they were trying to – he
fell because they were trying to attempt a least restrictive measure. And then
they updated on 4/26 to reflect that he was supposed to be in a geri chair. But
once he fell out of the wheelchair on 4/30, which he was not supposed to be
in, they didn’t update the care plan at that point.
19
She added that “I don’t think it was appropriate for Mr. Guillotte to have a self-release belt
without being able to understand his risk for harm by undoing it himself and getting up.
They [i.e., nursing home staff] knew his history.”
Contractures
¶30. Dr. Hammond testified that he was critical of the fact that the nursing home staff
ceased physical therapy for Guillotte, which Guillotte needed in order to maintain a range
of motion in his limbs. Dr. Hammond stated that “given he was getting progressive
contractures, you would have thought they [i.e., nursing home staff] would have been more
aggressive.” When asked whether or not Guillotte’s contractures were preventable, Dr.
Hammond testified that “[e]arly on, yes, they could have prolonged the time to contractures,
and some of them may have been entirely preventable. . . . I believe that the onset and
progression could both have been delayed with appropriate therapy.”
¶31. In addition, Nurse Trahant was critical of the nursing home for failing to continue
physical therapy for Guillotte after May 14, 2002. She testified that if the nursing home staff
members had continued providing restorative services to Guillotte, they could have prevented
his contractures from developing, improved his positioning and circulation, and decreased
his pain. She stated that if the nursing home staff had continued providing restorative care
to Guillotte,
they would have provided a range of motion. . . . [T]hey should have . . .
provided that to help not only with his arthritis and to lower his pain, he was
on some very strong pain medication at this point, also improve his circulation
and ultimately help in positioning. Because as the range of motion was not
provided and the contractures developed and worsened, that’s also when the
documentation started that he was developing right great toe wound, ankle
20
wounds, areas that would have been more prone to pressure due to positioning
problems because of the legs being drawn up or contracted up.
She further testified that: “I think Mr. Guillotte would have benefitted from being picked
back up by restorative in June. There were no documented reasons why they [i.e., nursing
home staff] couldn’t pick him up” and administer rehabilitative services.
¶32. Dr. Hammond testified about documentation deficiencies regarding Guillotte’s
contractures as well. He stated that
the nursing home does document the increased loss of voluntary movement
and that it is bilateral over time, but the hospital is seeing these changes and
documenting them way before the nursing home. . . . What worries me is the
doctors and nurses at the medical center are seeing these changes and
documenting them way before the home.
He added that in addition to accurately documenting Guillotte’s contractures, the nursing
home staff “need[ed] to document carefully why they [were] not intervening if they [were]
not going to.” Dr. Hammond testified that “they had a responsibility to maintain that [i.e.,
no negative change in Guillotte’s range of motion], if that’s what they believed the status
was, or to reassess based on the fact that they had dramatically conflicting information from
the hospital.”
Diabetes
¶33. Dr. Hammond provided testimony regarding the nursing home staff’s failure to
properly manage Guillotte’s diabetes. He also testified that Guillotte had “[p]oorly
controlled diabetes,” which “means you are at risk for secondary complications, such as
glycosuria, such as infections, et cetera.” Dr. Hammond stated that the nursing home staff
and Guillotte’s physicians failed to meet the standard of care regarding his diabetes. He
21
added that although a physician orders the glucose tests, “there is absolutely nothing to stop
the home from asking for a reassessment or making suggestions. My experience is that staff
are seldom shy to do that.” He stated that the nursing home staff breached the standard of
care by failing “to assess, reassess and care-plan and see whether they thought the glucoses
were appropriate or if they were uncertain, ask the physician for intervention. Ask for more
help. They don’t have to manage it, they just have to know when they have a problem and
ask for help.” Dr. Hammond also testified that if the nursing home staff had notified the
physician more often about Guillotte’s glucose levels,
hopefully, he [i.e., the physician] would have intervened and gotten better
glucose control. Better glucose control would have led to less risk of
infection, less risk of dehydration, and that would have changed – it would
have prevented the new onset of decubiti [i.e., bedsores]. It would have helped
it heal faster, it would have made him less prone to infection, and it would
have allowed him to protect his carry of blood through the terminal event and
to support his hemodynamic instability which led to his urosepsis. So it would
have changed his outcome.
Guillotte’s Death
¶34. Nurse Trahant provided testimony concerning the period immediately preceding
Guillotte’s death. She stated that
[o]n September 11 they document that he has fever. The physician is not
notified; they give him Tylenol. On September 13th he runs [a] fever again,
a hundred and two (102). They – this time they do notify Dr. Weaver, and he
prescribes Rocephin to be given, which is an antibiotic. So they give Mr.
Guillotte the antibiotic, and then on 9/21, at 2:00 in the morning, they
document that he has got faint respirations. He’s very restless, congested, and
they document that he’s very warm to the touch. They give him a breathing
treatment, put him on oxygen and that’s it. They don’t call the doctor; there
is no reassessment of his lung status other than they document at 3:20 that he’s
resting quietly. At 11:30, which would be 11:30 a.m., so eight (8) hours and
ten (10) minutes after the fact, there is no nurses [sic] notes that anyone went
back in to recheck him after this event. Nobody checked his vital signs.
22
Nobody listened to his chest. They go in and he’s having Shane stokes
breathing, which is a very ominous sign for someone’s medical condition.
That’s – a lot of times when patients are dying that’s the type of respirations
that they will exhibit. He’s got a hundred and three point five (103.5) if you
were taking it orally. He’s oxygen deprived. He’s got a very low oxygen
saturation. I mean, he’s extremely sick, signs and symptoms of shock. And
once he gets to the emergency room, they do document a very, very low blood
pressure. He was extremely ill and septic at that point. And they diagnosed
him with sepsis, dehydration, hypoxia or lack of oxygen to the brain. And he
ultimately, based on the records, dies. And the discharge diagnosis indicates
that he was septic.
She testified that a physician should have been notified on September 11 and September 21,
2002, and that the nurses should have properly documented Guillotte’s condition.
¶35. After a de novo review of the record before the trial court, taking the evidence in the
light most favorable to Jordan, it is clear that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Dixie White House staff members breached the standard of care, causing Guillotte
to suffer injury and death.
C. Whether Allegedly Negligent Nursing Home Staff Must Be Identified by
Name.
¶36. Despite the evidence in the record supporting Jordan’s negligence claim, the
Defendants argue that the failure of Jordan to identify the nursing home staff members who
negligently cared for Guillotte is fatal to her claims. More specifically, the Defendants claim,
and the trial court agreed, that Finley stands for the proposition that a plaintiff must identify
by name those individuals who allegedly breached the standard of care. Finley, 933 So. 2d
1026. This Court finds this argument without merit. Nowhere in the Finley decision does
the Court of Appeals set out this proposition. Moreover, it does not make sense that a
plaintiff’s claim can be defeated on summary judgment just because individual names are not
23
given when there is a significant amount of expert testimony, summarized above, regarding
individual staff members’ negligence. Clearly, the Defendants are in a better position to
review and interpret the medical records, which are generated and maintained by the
Defendants, in order to identify the employees who cared for Guillotte.
¶37. The Defendants focus on the portions of the depositions where Dr. Hammond and
Nurse Trahant stated that they could not identify individual staff members by name based on
the incomplete or illegible entries in the medical records. However, the depositions as a
whole clearly indicate that individual staff members breached the standard of care, causing
Guillotte injury. Dr. Hammond repeatedly stated that individual nursing home staff members
and Guillotte’s physicians shared responsibility for failing to ensure that Guillotte received
proper care. With respect to Guillotte’s diabetes, Dr. Hammond explained that the
partnership between the nursing home staff and the physicians meant that:
[I]f I am a doctor and someone tells me someone’s blood glucose has
been up consistently for the last month about three to 400, I’m going to make
a whole new plan. If I am told I have one glucose of 300, I will probably give
them a little insulin and not worry about it.
So part of the partnership is making sure the doctor has the right
information. . . . I don’t believe the doctors would have done the things they
did with glucose, wound care or nutrition, dehydration if they had adequate
information.
Dr. Hammond testified that “I think it is a systemic failure, meaning that there are many
individuals that breached the standard of care, all right? And that they share a responsibility
with the home. But it is essentially the home which is failing to deliver the standard of care.”
(Emphasis added.) Dr. Hammond further stated that he felt that “I think there are a lot of
individuals that breached the standard of care. . . . [T]he nursing home doesn’t actually do
24
anything, all right? It is people who do things. So it is the people who breached the standard
of care.” (Emphasis added.)
¶38. It is worth noting that the Defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Robert Kelly, also admitted
that, based on the entries in the medical records, he could not provide full names for the
individuals who provided care to Guillotte during his residence at Dixie White House. The
fact that the individual names of those staff members were not identified should not defeat
a claim of negligence that is supported by evidence, especially when the Defendants are in
the best position to identify by name the individual staff members who cared for Guillotte.
D. Jordan’s Attorney’s Statement at Dr. Hammond’s Deposition
¶39. The Defendants also contend that summary judgment was properly granted because
Jordan’s attorney, Anthony Reins, stated at Dr. Hammond’s deposition that no testimony
would be presented at trial regarding specific caregivers. The trial court mentioned that
Reins’ statement supported the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Reins
made this statement during an exchange with the attorney for the Defendants, Lynda Carter:
Q: [A]t the time of trial, are you [i.e., Dr. Hammond] going to be
providing opinions that this nurse, this aide, this dietary person,
this employee of the facility breached the standard of care?
Mr. Reins: Let me assure counsel on the record, so you can avoid any
surprise or unfair prejudice at trial, there will be no opinions as
to specific caregivers. There will be the testimony which he
gave today and that will be his only testimony at trial, which
will be the deviation from the standard of care and the outcomes
that resulted therefrom.
Ms. Carter: And those deviations are from a systemic failure facility-wide?
Mr. Reins: I think we all can agree that care is delivered through
individuals. So, obviously, that kind of care is delivered. But
so there is no surprise, no ambush, you will know the standards
of care that have been violated. You have been told those today.
But nobody is in a better position than you and your clients to
25
know who was supposed to be giving that care on a specific day.
You guys tell us that, we will be happy to answer.
Ms. Carter: My question is, if he is going to come to trial and provide
opinions that particular employees of the facility, whether they
are nurses, nurses’ aides, dietary, cooks, et cetera, breached the
standard of care and/or caused harm or damage to Mr. Guillotte,
we are entitled to know that.
Mr. Reins: What he is going to testify at trial to is exactly verbatim what he
has told you today.
Thus, although Reins stated that Dr. Hammond would not give opinions as to specific
caregivers, given the context of his statement, it is clear that he meant that Dr. Hammond
would not be testifying about individual nursing home staff members by name. Reins
explicitly stated that Dr. Hammond would be testifying about the ways in which the nursing
home staff breached the standard of care in treating Guillotte, just as he had testified at that
deposition. He also stated shortly after the exchange with Carter that “my expert is not going
to testify as to the caregivers by name who fell below the standard of care.”
¶40. In spite of Reins’ statement at Dr. Hammond’s deposition, the expert testimony of
both Dr. Hammond and Nurse Trahant clearly demonstrates that there were specific breaches
of the standard of care by individual nursing home staff members, though the experts could
not identify the staff members by name. Moreover, to the extent that Reins’ statement must
be considered when reviewing the decision to grant summary judgment, this Court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Price, 920 So. 2d at 483. Viewing
Reins’ statement in context and in the light most favorable to Jordan, the statement does not
foreclose Jordan from arguing that individual nursing home staff members were negligent.
¶41. This Court finds that Jordan’s answer to Interrogatory No. 11, the Court of Appeals’
holding in Finley, and Reins’ statement do not preclude Jordan from pursuing claims based
26
on the negligence of individual nursing home staff members. This Court also finds that there
is ample evidence in the record supporting this claim. Therefore, we conclude that summary
judgment was improperly granted as to this claim.
II. Whether Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted as to Corporate Negligence
Claims.
¶42. Jordan also claims that the Defendants are liable for corporate negligence. Jordan
asserts that the Defendants were negligent in failing to hire an adequate number of staff
members for Dixie White House, failing to properly supervise nursing home staff, failing to
properly train nursing home staff, and failing to adopt adequate guidelines, policies, and
procedures for documenting resident care.
¶43. There was no evidence in the record regarding the Defendants’ duty and the standard
of care as to hiring, supervision of staff, training of staff, and documentation procedures.
There was also no evidence in the record with respect to the Defendants’ breach of the
standard of care and causation under any of the four assertions. The record only contains
evidence relating to two of the corporate negligence claims – hiring and training. However,
the evidence is not sufficient to support all four elements of negligence as to either claim.
¶44. First, concerning the claim that the Defendants failed to hire an adequate number of
staff for Dixie White House, Dr. Hammond admitted in his deposition that:
[T]he only evidence I have for lack of staffing, only specific evidence is in the
surveys where they say that activities were not done if the patient could not
leave the room, which suggested to me there was a lack of staffing. Many of
the failures we see here today are consistent with a lack of staffing.
The surveys to which Dr. Hammond referred were administered as part of a complaint
investigation of Dixie White House and were completed in May 2001, before Guillotte was
27
a resident of the nursing home. Therefore, to the extent that the surveys may demonstrate
that Dixie White House breached its duty by failing to hire adequate staff, there is no
evidence demonstrating that this caused injury to Guillotte, since the surveys encompass a
time period prior to his residence at Dixie White House.
¶45. Second, as to the claim that the Defendants failed to properly train Dixie White House
staff, Nurse Trahant testified that appropriately trained nurses and CNAs should have known
that the failure to provide care for Guillotte, to develop a comprehensive care plan, to
properly treat pressure sores, and to properly maintain the Foley catheter could lead to
problems. However, no evidence was presented as to the Defendants’ duty to train the
nursing home staff. Therefore, evidence of a breach of that duty is lacking.
¶46. Accordingly, we find that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jordan,
there is no evidence to support Jordan’s corporate-negligence claims. The record contains
no evidence that the Defendants breached their duty as corporate entities, causing Guillotte
injury. Thus, this Court finds that summary judgment was properly granted as to the
corporate-negligence claims.
CONCLUSION
¶47. This Court finds that summary judgment was properly granted as to Jordan’s claims
that the Defendants were negligent in failing to hire an adequate number of staff, failing to
properly supervise their staff, failing to properly train their staff, and failing to adopt
adequate guidelines, policies, and procedures for documenting resident care. However, this
Court finds that summary judgment was improperly granted as to Jordan’s claims based on
the negligence of individual Dixie White House staff. Therefore, this case is affirmed in part
28
and reversed and remanded in part to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
¶48. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
WALLER, C.J., CARLSON, P.J., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH, LAMAR,
KITCHENS, CHANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ., CONCUR.
29