Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski
United States Supreme Court
599 U.S. 166 (2023)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
As Gorgi Talevski’s dementia progressed, his family placed him in the Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation nursing home (VCR) (defendant). When Gorgi’s symptoms worsened rapidly, his family became suspicious. They subsequently learned that VCR was chemically restraining Gorgi using powerful psychotropic medications. When the medications were stopped, Gorgi regained some of his lost functions. Later the same year, VCR claimed that Gorgi was harassing female staff and residents. VCR relied on that claim to send Gorgi to a psychiatric hospital for days at a time. The third time, instead of accepting Gorgi back at VCR, VCR tried to permanently transfer him to a dementia facility over 90 minutes away without first notifying Gorgi or his family. The family filed a complaint with state authorities, but in the meantime, Gorgi became settled in the new facility. Gorgi’s wife, Ivanka Talevski (plaintiff), filed suit on Gorgi’s behalf against VCR; VCR’s owner, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County; and VCR’s operator, American Senior Communities (collectively, HHC) (defendants). The Talevskis’ claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserted that HHC’s chemical restraint of Gorgi and transfer of Gorgi without notice violated the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA). HHC argued that FNHRA did not create private individual rights that were enforceable under § 1983. The district court agreed with HHC and dismissed the claim. The court of appeals reversed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.