Hill v. Beverly Enterprises-Mississippi, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
305 F. Supp. 2d 644 (2003)
- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Lawrence Hill (plaintiff) was a resident at Beverly Health and Rehabilitation, a nursing-home facility operated by Beverly Enterprises Mississippi, Inc. (collectively, Beverly) (defendants). Hill, through his representatives, filed a personal-injury claim against Beverly for alleged injuries sustained by Hill resulting from the care provided at the facility. Additionally, Hill sought to hold Alicha Lindsay (defendant), as the nursing-home administrator, and James Landers and David Devereaux (the licensees) (defendants), as the licensees of the nursing home, personally liable under the direct-participation theory of individual liability. The complaint alleged that Lindsay and the licensees were responsible for managing and supervising the facility and that they failed to properly hire, supervise, and train nursing personnel and failed to ensure that the facility prepared and maintained adequate records. Beverly, Lindsay, and the licensees removed the case to federal court. Hill moved to remand the case to state court for trial. Beverly and the licensees opposed the motion and argued that Hill failed to satisfy the direct participation required under the direct-participation theory of individual liability because Hill had not alleged any personal contact between Lindsay or the licensees and Hill or the personnel who purportedly caused his injuries.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
