State Supreme Court re-examines 8-year-old nursing home class action lawsuit

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday reopened a nearly decade-old class action lawsuit against a nursing home provider after the plaintiffs claimed that Judge Timothy Fox “repeatedly failed to follow directions issued by the high court across the five appeals associated with the suit,” the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported. 

Further, according to court records, the justices admonished Fox “for the wholly inappropriate comments he made while performing his judicial duties.”

Residents of the Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Little Rock, and the estates of deceased residents, claim that the skilled nursing facility violated the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Law by breaching contracts and deliberate understaffing that led to inadequate care. Under the law, according to the plaintiffs, the provider’s actions were tantamount to bait-and-switch advertising; that is, the provider didn’t keep its end of the bargain and provide services as advertised.

The state’s high court reopened the case last week because of two Pulaski County Circuit Court orders from Fox that denied the nursing home’s motion to compel the members of the class action lawsuit to submit their claims to binding arbitration. Fox granted the request to enforce the arbitration agreements of 93 residents and denied arbitration regarding the other 104 residents in the class action lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Shawn Womack said, “Because the circuit court refuses to make specific findings that provide the parties and this court with a rationale for its decisions, we must remand to the circuit court with the specific instructions provided herein.” 

Therefore, Womack said, it is necessary for the case to be reassigned, and the case must be reassigned to a new judge within 10 days.

Citing precedent, Associate Justice Karen R. Baker wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that the case should be heard on its merits and not be remanded back to the district court. She deemed the majority decision to be “a waste of judicial resources.”