On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against the Maryland Department of Health (“MDH”) and MDH’s Secretary Laura Herrera Scott, in her official capacity. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) for alleged failures
to conduct statutorily mandated annual surveys and investigate complaints within statutorily prescribed time frames. On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification seeking certification of a class consisting of “[r]esidents of nursing facilities who have disabilities with mobility impairment, and who live in nursing facilities that operate under the oversight authority of the Maryland Department of Health.”
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland stated in its Memorandum Opinion filed on April 22, 2025: “MDH had not completed an annual survey in 181 of Maryland’s 225 Medicaid- and Medicare-participating nursing facilities in the 16 months before the Complaint was filed and more than 100 nursing facilities had not been surveyed in four years. The lack of MDH oversight has unique impacts on Plaintiffs due to their heightened need for care by, and increased reliance upon, nursing facility staff, which stem from their mobility impairments. Plaintiffs rely on nursing staff assistance for hygiene and incontinence care, socialization, receipt of pain medication, and even, in some instances, to eat and drink water, which makes them uniquely vulnerable to performance failures and staffing shortages at their facilities. Plaintiffs allege that nursing facilities in Maryland have a record of poor performance “over numerous review cycles[,]”particularly in Black communities, and MDH’s failure to detect and address violations as required under the NHRA results in “unique and unaddressed harm” to Plaintiffs “due to the nature of their disability.””
“The Complaint details each Plaintiff’s experience at a nursing facility in Maryland and reliance on facility staff for basic needs, including being transferred in and out of bed, regular repositioning in bed and incontinence care, personal hygiene, nutrition, medication management, movement to common areas, attendance of community events. Deficiencies in the quality of care and protection of resident rights at these facilities have caused, and placed Plaintiffs at risk of, pressure ulcers, skin infections, falls, psychosocial harm, and other medical complications. Some Plaintiffs have been confined to their beds or their rooms for months. At the time the Complaint was filed in May 2024, the most recent statutorily mandated survey that had been conducted at any of these facilities was in November 2022. A survey had not been completed at one facility since November 2020. Plaintiffs allege that if MDH complied with its obligations by conducting annual surveys and timely investigating complaints, it would discover violations and be required to take corrective action.”
The federal court determined: “Plaintiffs’ claim to injury based on MDH’s failure to meet its oversight and enforcement obligations respecting nursing facilities in Maryland is sufficiently concrete and particularized to state an injury in fact for purposes of standing … the Court finds the facts alleged in the Complaint sufficient to draw a chain of causation between MDH’s oversight and enforcement failures and Plaintiffs’ particularized and unique injuries and risks as mobility-impaired residents of nursing facilities. The Complaint supports a reasonable inference that the nursing facilities where Plaintiffs reside have reacted to the lack of oversight and enforcement by MDH in ways that have caused them harm and put them at risk of greater harm … Plaintiffs allege that MDH’s failure to satisfy its statutory oversight and enforcement duties has uniquely severe impacts on mobility-impaired nursing facility residents, imposing upon them higher levels of harm and special injuries not suffered by residents who do not have mobility impairments. Thus, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants’ methods of administering their oversight functions, whether by commission or omission, “have the . . . effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity’s program with respect to individuals with disabilities[,]” in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(ii) … The Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged facts sufficient to state a methods-of-administration claim against Defendants.”
With regard to class certification, the Maryland federal court stated: “To be certified as a class under Rule 23, Plaintiffs must show that the class is numerous, the injuries are common to all class members, the claims alleged are typical of all class members, and the class representatives and their attorneys can adequately represent the entire class. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a). Here, Plaintiffs propose a class of at least 9,000 mobility-impaired individuals residing in 222 nursing facilities in Maryland. Defendants concede that Plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) … The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims, on behalf of all members of the proposed class, present a common question and depend upon a common contention “capable of classwide resolution[.]” … what factual differences exist among
members of the proposed class cannot defeat Plaintiffs’ showing of commonality. See Peters, 2 F.4th at 242 (citing Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350). For these reasons, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that variety among the class members’ personal circumstances and injuries defeats commonality … Plaintiffs have established a “sufficient relationship” between the injury they assert and conduct by Defendants that affect the proposed class as a whole, such that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those among class members … the Court finds that the adequacy-of-representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is met in this case … For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that all Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) conditions for class certification are met in this case. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification shall be granted.”
“The Court CERTIFIES under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class consisting of: Residents of nursing facilities who have disabilities with mobility impairment, and who live in nursing facilities that operate under
the oversight authority of the Maryland Department of Health.”
Source Connor v. Maryland Department of Health, Civ. No.: MJM-24-1423.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of nursing home malpractice in Maryland or in another U.S. state due to nursing home pressure ulcer (nursing home bedsore) negligence, nursing home infection, nursing home fall, nursing home aspiration, nursing home neglect, nursing home negligence, nursing home abuse, nursing home understaffing, or the nursing home failing to properly care for a vulnerable adult, you should promptly find a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your nursing home malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a nursing home malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you with your nursing home claim.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.