Subject Matter: Private Cause of Action Under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983
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. Â§ 1983 to challenge the treatment
Appellantâ€™s decedent received (or did not receive) at the
Appellee nursing home â€“ treatment Appellant argues violated
the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNRA), 42
U.S.C. Â§ 1396r et seq. We answer that question in the
affirmative and will reverse and remand the cause to the District
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 â€œvague and
amorphousâ€ 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 Â§ 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.
Firm/Company: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Document Date: June 2009
Search Tags: 1983 US District Court FNRA