Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist
Headline: Nursing home's summary judgment reversed; negligence claims to proceed
Citation: 2025 Ohio 5097
Brief at a Glance
A nursing home can't automatically win a wrongful death lawsuit by asking a judge to stop the case early; if there are questions about the care provided, a jury gets to decide.
Case Summary
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist, decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on November 10, 2025, resulted in a mixed outcome. The core dispute centered on whether a nursing home facility, Concord Village, was liable for the wrongful death of a resident, Ms. Lundquist, due to alleged negligence in her care. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the nursing home. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the nursing home's negligence, thus allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court held: The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home breached its duty of care to the resident.. The court found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and facility records, raised questions about the adequacy of the resident's care and the nursing home's adherence to its own policies and industry standards.. Specifically, the court noted that the resident's declining condition and subsequent death, coupled with allegations of inadequate monitoring and response, were sufficient to create a jury question on negligence.. The court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which the defendant nursing home failed to rebut through undisputed facts.. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential trial.. This decision is significant for healthcare providers and patients, as it reinforces that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial when there are arguable questions of fact regarding negligence in patient care. It emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to care standards in nursing facilities to avoid potential liability.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Court Syllabus
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Imagine a loved one is in a nursing home and sadly passes away. If you believe the care they received wasn't good enough and contributed to their death, this case says you might be able to sue the nursing home. The court decided that just because the nursing home asked for a trial to be stopped early, it doesn't automatically mean they win; a jury might still need to decide if they were negligent.
For Legal Practitioners
The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the nursing home, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence in the wrongful death claim. This decision emphasizes that allegations of inadequate care, supported by some evidence, can preclude summary disposition, requiring a trial to resolve factual disputes. Practitioners should note the lower bar for surviving summary judgment in such cases and prepare for trial when factual questions about care standards and causation remain.
For Law Students
This case tests the standard for summary judgment in wrongful death actions against healthcare facilities. The court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of potential negligence to create a genuine issue of material fact, thus reversing the grant of summary judgment. This aligns with the principle that summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable minds could differ on the ultimate conclusion, particularly concerning proximate cause and breach of duty in medical negligence.
Newsroom Summary
An Ohio appeals court has revived a wrongful death lawsuit against a nursing home, ruling that a jury, not a judge, should decide if the facility's alleged negligence led to a resident's death. This decision means families can pursue claims against nursing homes for inadequate care, even if the facility initially tried to get the case dismissed.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home breached its duty of care to the resident.
- The court found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and facility records, raised questions about the adequacy of the resident's care and the nursing home's adherence to its own policies and industry standards.
- Specifically, the court noted that the resident's declining condition and subsequent death, coupled with allegations of inadequate monitoring and response, were sufficient to create a jury question on negligence.
- The court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which the defendant nursing home failed to rebut through undisputed facts.
- Therefore, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential trial.
Deep Legal Analysis
Procedural Posture
This case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Fifth District after the trial court granted a preliminary injunction against Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. The injunction was sought by the Director of the Ohio Department of Health, who alleged that Concord Village was operating without a license and was in violation of state law. The trial court found that the Director was likely to succeed on the merits and that irreparable harm would occur if the injunction was not granted. Concord Village appealed this decision.
Constitutional Issues
Due Process rights of Concord Village in the licensing and injunction process.The scope of the Director's authority to seek injunctive relief against unlicensed facilities.
Rule Statements
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates a probability of success on the merits and that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted."
"The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of the rights of the parties."
Remedies
Preliminary Injunction: The trial court issued an order prohibiting Concord Village from operating as a residential care facility without a license.
Entities and Participants
Frequently Asked Questions (42)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (11)
Q: What is Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist about?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on November 10, 2025.
Q: What court decided Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.
Q: When was Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist decided?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist was decided on November 10, 2025.
Q: Who were the judges in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The judge in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist: Patton.
Q: What is the citation for Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The citation for Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist is 2025 Ohio 5097. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the full case name and who were the main parties involved in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The full case name is Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist. The main parties were Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd., the nursing home facility, and the estate of Ms. Lundquist, the deceased resident.
Q: Which court decided the Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist case, and what was its role?
The case was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals. This court reviewed a decision made by a lower trial court, specifically examining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted.
Q: What was the central legal issue in the Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist case?
The central legal issue was whether Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. could be held liable for the wrongful death of a resident, Ms. Lundquist, based on allegations of negligence in her care.
Q: What was the outcome of the trial court's decision in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. This meant the trial court found no genuine dispute of material fact and dismissed the case before it could go to a full trial.
Q: What did the Ohio Court of Appeals decide regarding the trial court's ruling in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. They found that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the nursing home's alleged negligence, meaning the case should proceed to trial.
Q: What is the nature of the dispute between Concord Village and Ms. Lundquist's estate?
The nature of the dispute is a civil lawsuit alleging that Concord Village's negligence in providing care to Ms. Lundquist directly caused her death, leading to a wrongful death claim.
Legal Analysis (13)
Q: Is Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist published?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The court issued a mixed ruling in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist. Key holdings: The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home breached its duty of care to the resident.; The court found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and facility records, raised questions about the adequacy of the resident's care and the nursing home's adherence to its own policies and industry standards.; Specifically, the court noted that the resident's declining condition and subsequent death, coupled with allegations of inadequate monitoring and response, were sufficient to create a jury question on negligence.; The court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which the defendant nursing home failed to rebut through undisputed facts.; Therefore, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential trial..
Q: Why is Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist important?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist has an impact score of 60/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision is significant for healthcare providers and patients, as it reinforces that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial when there are arguable questions of fact regarding negligence in patient care. It emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to care standards in nursing facilities to avoid potential liability.
Q: What precedent does Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist set?
Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home breached its duty of care to the resident. (2) The court found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and facility records, raised questions about the adequacy of the resident's care and the nursing home's adherence to its own policies and industry standards. (3) Specifically, the court noted that the resident's declining condition and subsequent death, coupled with allegations of inadequate monitoring and response, were sufficient to create a jury question on negligence. (4) The court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which the defendant nursing home failed to rebut through undisputed facts. (5) Therefore, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential trial.
Q: What are the key holdings in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
1. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home breached its duty of care to the resident. 2. The court found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and facility records, raised questions about the adequacy of the resident's care and the nursing home's adherence to its own policies and industry standards. 3. Specifically, the court noted that the resident's declining condition and subsequent death, coupled with allegations of inadequate monitoring and response, were sufficient to create a jury question on negligence. 4. The court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which the defendant nursing home failed to rebut through undisputed facts. 5. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential trial.
Q: What cases are related to Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
Precedent cases cited or related to Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist: Civ. R. 56; State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 86 Ohio St. 3d 280 (1999); Hollins v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 124 Ohio App. 3d 525 (8th Dist. 1997).
Q: What legal standard did the Ohio Court of Appeals apply when reviewing the summary judgment in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The appellate court applied the de novo standard of review to the summary judgment. This means they reviewed the case as if it were being heard for the first time, without deference to the trial court's legal conclusions.
Q: What does it mean for a case to have 'genuine issues of material fact' as found in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
A 'genuine issue of material fact' means that there are disputed facts that are important to the outcome of the case. These disputed facts require a jury or judge at trial to resolve, rather than being decided at the summary judgment stage.
Q: What type of claim was brought against Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. in this case?
The claim brought against Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. was for wrongful death, based on allegations of negligence in the care provided to the resident, Ms. Lundquist.
Q: What is the burden of proof in a wrongful death lawsuit based on negligence?
In a wrongful death lawsuit based on negligence, the plaintiff (Ms. Lundquist's estate) must prove that the defendant (Concord Village) owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach directly caused the resident's death.
Q: What specific allegations of negligence were likely considered in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
While the summary doesn't detail specifics, allegations of negligence in a nursing home context typically involve failures in providing adequate medical care, supervision, nutrition, hydration, or preventing falls and bedsores.
Q: What is the legal definition of 'negligence' as it applies to a nursing home?
Negligence in the nursing home context means the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent nursing home would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to a resident. This can include failures in supervision, medical treatment, or general care.
Q: Who is responsible for proving negligence in a wrongful death case like this one?
The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, in this case, Ms. Lundquist's estate. They must present sufficient evidence to convince the court or jury that Concord Village's actions or omissions constituted negligence and caused the death.
Practical Implications (6)
Q: How does Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist affect me?
This decision is significant for healthcare providers and patients, as it reinforces that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial when there are arguable questions of fact regarding negligence in patient care. It emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to care standards in nursing facilities to avoid potential liability. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: How does the appellate court's decision in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist impact the plaintiff?
The decision allows Ms. Lundquist's estate to proceed with their wrongful death lawsuit. They will now have the opportunity to present their evidence of negligence to a trial court and seek damages.
Q: What is the practical effect of the Ohio Court of Appeals reversing the summary judgment for Concord Village?
The practical effect is that the case will now proceed to a trial phase. Concord Village will have to defend against the negligence claims in front of a judge or jury, rather than having the case dismissed early.
Q: How might this ruling affect other nursing home facilities in Ohio?
This ruling reinforces that nursing homes cannot easily escape negligence claims through summary judgment if there are factual disputes about resident care. It may encourage more scrutiny of care practices and potentially lead to more lawsuits proceeding to trial.
Q: What are the potential financial implications for Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. following this appellate decision?
Concord Village now faces the costs associated with preparing for and participating in a full trial, including legal fees and potential damages if found liable. This is a significant financial risk compared to the case being dismissed.
Q: What does this case suggest about the importance of documentation in nursing home care?
The case implies that thorough documentation of resident care is crucial for nursing homes. If records are incomplete or show potential lapses, it can create factual disputes that prevent summary judgment and lead to trial.
Historical Context (3)
Q: Does this ruling establish new legal precedent for nursing home liability in Ohio?
While this ruling applies existing legal principles regarding negligence and summary judgment, it reinforces the standard for when such claims must be decided by a fact-finder. It contributes to the body of case law interpreting liability for elder care facilities.
Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of elder abuse and neglect litigation?
This case is part of a larger trend of litigation seeking accountability for nursing homes when residents suffer harm due to inadequate care. It highlights the legal system's mechanism for addressing such claims when factual disputes exist.
Q: Are there any landmark Ohio Supreme Court cases that established the standards for negligence in nursing homes that might be relevant here?
The Ohio Supreme Court has addressed negligence standards in various contexts, including professional negligence. While this case is at the appellate level, it relies on fundamental principles of tort law, likely informed by broader Ohio Supreme Court precedent on duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Procedural Questions (6)
Q: What was the docket number in Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
The docket number for Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist is 2025-L-033. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist be appealed?
Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.
Q: What is the significance of 'summary judgment' in the context of Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist?
Summary judgment is a procedural tool where a court can decide a case without a full trial if there are no significant factual disputes. In this case, the trial court granted it to the nursing home, but the appellate court found it was improperly granted.
Q: What is the typical path a wrongful death lawsuit takes from filing to potential trial?
A wrongful death lawsuit typically begins with filing a complaint, followed by discovery (exchanging evidence), motions like summary judgment, and if unresolved, a trial. This case was stopped at the summary judgment stage by the trial court and is now moving back towards trial.
Q: What does it mean for the case to be 'reversed' by the appellate court?
When an appellate court reverses a lower court's decision, it means they disagree with the lower court's ruling and set it aside. In this instance, the appellate court overturned the summary judgment, allowing the case to continue.
Q: What happens next for Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. and Ms. Lundquist's estate after the reversal?
Following the reversal, the case is typically remanded back to the trial court. The parties will likely proceed with further discovery and prepare for a trial on the merits of the wrongful death and negligence claims.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Civ. R. 56
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 86 Ohio St. 3d 280 (1999)
- Hollins v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 124 Ohio App. 3d 525 (8th Dist. 1997)
Case Details
| Case Name | Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist |
| Citation | 2025 Ohio 5097 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Date Filed | 2025-11-10 |
| Docket Number | 2025-L-033 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Mixed Outcome |
| Disposition | reversed |
| Impact Score | 60 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision is significant for healthcare providers and patients, as it reinforces that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial when there are arguable questions of fact regarding negligence in patient care. It emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to care standards in nursing facilities to avoid potential liability. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Nursing home negligence, Wrongful death claims, Premises liability in healthcare facilities, Standard of care for healthcare providers, Summary judgment standards in Ohio, Breach of duty of care, Causation in negligence claims |
| Jurisdiction | oh |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Concord Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab., Ltd. v. Lundquist was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Nursing home negligence or from the Ohio Court of Appeals:
-
State v. Goodson
Probable Cause Justifies Warrantless Vehicle Search for DrugsOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Sanchez
Statements to Police Deemed Voluntary, Conviction AffirmedOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Castaneda
Ohio Court Affirms Suppression of Evidence from Warrantless Vehicle SearchOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Mitchell
Court suppresses evidence from warrantless vehicle search due to lack of probable causeOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court Affirms Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable CauseOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Gore
Warrantless vehicle search after traffic stop deemed unlawfulOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
Helton v. Kettering Medical Ctr.
Medical Malpractice Claim Fails Due to Insufficient Evidence of NegligenceOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
In re C.P.
Ohio Court Allows Reconsideration of No-Contact Order for Child VisitationOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24