In July 2017, Annie J. Jones became a resident of Life Care Centers of America, Inc. d/b/a Life Care Center of Tullahoma (“Life Care”), a skilled nursing facility in Tullahoma, Tennessee. Ms. Jones had pre-existing dementia, depression, and anxiety. Her cognitive functioning was severely impaired; she required help with daily functions.
On February 12, 2019, a certified nursing aide (“CNA”) employed by Life Care was helping Ms. Jones bathe in the facility’s shower room. The CNA received a video call from her incarcerated boyfriend; she propped her cell phone on a shelf in the shower room to continue talking with her boyfriend while she helped Ms. Jones bathe. During the call,
one Life Care employee called Ms. Jones by her first name while CNAs undressed her. Ms. Jones’s nude body was visible to the CNA’s incarcerated boyfriend during the video call. None of the Life Care employees involved in the incident reported it to Life Care. Meanwhile, the CNA’s incarcerated boyfriend’s video visitation was being monitored, and the person reviewing his communications saw the video of the call with the Life Care CNA, including Ms. Jones’s nude body. The video was reported to law enforcement, who identified the CNA whose boyfriend placed the video call.
On February 12, 2020, Ms. Sons, in her capacity as conservator of Ms. Jones (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Life Care in the Circuit Court of Coffee County. The complaint alleged that the actions of the Life Care CNA in “[v]ideoing” Ms. Jones “while being showered violated her privacy and dignity.” It asserted a claim for negligence under “the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115, et seq.” and a generalized claim for invasion of privacy with allegations of gross negligence and willful, reckless, or intentional misconduct. The complaint sought compensatory damages, special damages, and punitive damages.
The trial court agreed with Life Care that, to defeat Life Care’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff had to offer proof of “actual injury or loss” in the form of “physical, mental or emotional injury.” It was undisputed that “Ms. Jones is unaware that the incident occurred,” Plaintiff cannot prove injury from invasion of privacy such as “personal humiliation, mental anguish or similar damages.” For that reason, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Life Care. While the case was pending in the trial court, Ms. Jones died from causes unrelated to the case. An April 2022 order substituted Ms. Sons to pursue the lawsuit as administrator ad litem of Ms. Jones’s estate. Plaintiff appealed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court stated in its April 25, 2025 Opinion: “Life Care argues that Plaintiff’s claim for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion abated upon Ms. Jones’s death. For that reason, Life Care contends, it is entitled to summary judgment … Tennessee’s “survival statute” is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated sections 20-5-101 and 102. Section 20-5-101 provides: “Actions do not abate by the death or other disability of either party, or by the transfer of any interest in the action, if the cause of action survives or continues.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-101. This statute “permits the decedent’s cause of action to survive the death, so that the decedent, through his or her estate, recovers damages that would have been recovered by the decedent had he or she lived to the resolution of the case … Section 20-5-102, the subject of this appeal, provides: No civil action commenced, whether founded on wrongs or contracts, except actions for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff, shall abate by the death of either party, but may be revived; nor shall any right of action arising hereafter based on the wrongful act or omission of another, except actions for wrongs affecting the character, be abated by the death of the party wronged; but the right of action shall pass in like manner as the right of action described in § 20-5-106 … The plain language in section 20-5-102 states that the Plaintiff’s claim shall not abate, absent a statutory exception.”
“[T]his Court recognized in West that the “concept of the right to privacy” under the common law is rooted in an influential law review article that described “the right to be let alone” … Here, Ms. Jones was not alone in her own home when the video by Life Care’s CNA was made. Instead, she was in a facility owned by Life Care, in the presence of Life Care staff authorized to help her bathe. But, depending on the circumstances, a claimant for intrusion upon seclusion may be able to assert a “right to be let alone” even where she was not alone in her own home. As the tort is widely recognized, a defendant may be held liable if the intrusion was “into a private place or . . . a private seclusion that the plaintiff has thrown about his person or affairs” … The right violated “enables the right holder to fully participate in society and still exercise the right to privacy” by “empower[ing] protected persons to decide who may have access to one’s private spaces and who is not allowed to such spaces.””
“In short, for intrusion upon seclusion, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s violation of her right affected, that is, “produce[d] an effect or change upon,” the plaintiff’s character. Affect, 1 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, supra. Nor can the plaintiff’s character provide the defendant with a defense to the claim. Of note, the analysis of whether an action is “for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” under the exception in section 20-5-102 does not focus on the facts in a given case. Instead, it considers the legal right of the plaintiff that is allegedly violated and what the plaintiff must prove.”
The Tennessee Supreme Court held: “In sum, for an intrusion upon seclusion action, the plaintiff’s legal right does not
involve her character; evidence of the plaintiff’s alleged low moral character provides no defense to the claim; and the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s violation of her right produced an injurious effect on the plaintiff’s character. Therefore, an action for intrusion upon seclusion is not one “for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” and the exception to the survival statute does not apply to the Plaintiff’s claim against Life Care. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-102 … we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the Plaintiff’s claim for intrusion upon seclusion did not abate upon the death of Ms. Jones pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102.”
Source Jones v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., No. M2022-00471-SC-R11-CV.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries (or worse) while a resident of a nursing home in Tennessee or in another U.S. state due to nursing home neglect, nursing home negligence, nursing home abuse, a nursing home fall, or nursing home understaffing, you should promptly contact a nursing home claim attorney in Tennessee or in your state who may investigate your nursing home claim for you and file a nursing home claim on your behalf, if appropriate.
Visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers (nursing home claim lawyers) in your U.S. state who may assist you with your nursing home claim, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
