Document Category:
State: Pennsylvania
Subject Matter: Private Cause of Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Document Title:
Comments:

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

We are asked in this appeal to determine whether an

action will lie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the treatment

Appellant’s decedent received (or did not receive) at the

Appellee nursing home – treatment Appellant argues violated

the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNRA), 42

U.S.C. § 1396r et seq. We answer that question in the

affirmative and will reverse and remand the cause to the District

Court.

In so holding, we conclude that the language of the

FNHRA is sufficiently rights-creating and that the rights

conferred by its various provisions are neither “vague and

amorphous” nor impose upon states a mere precatory obligation.

See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 287 (2002) (citing

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275-288-89 (2001)). Further,

we conclude that § 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief

because the Appellee has failed to demonstrate that Congress

foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive

enforcement scheme. See Gonzaga Univ., 536 U.S. at 284.


Document Author: SMITH and NYGAARD Circuit Judges
Firm/Company: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Document Date: June 2009
Search Tags: 1983 US District Court FNRA
File Attachments:
Copyright:

loggedout