Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski

A statute creates a §1983-enforceable right when the statute “unambiguously confer[s] individual federal rights. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 535 U.S. 273, 280 (2002).

Plaintiff filed a suit for relief under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated the unnecessary-restraint and predischarge notice provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA). The District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, holding that residents cannot enforce the FNHRA using §1983. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the FNHRA creates rights for nursing home residents that are enforceable via §1983.  The Court held that the FNHRA creates rights that are enforceable via §1983. After examining the statute, the Court reasoned the FNHRA confers unambiguous rights to nursing home residents because it is expressly states that the statute includes rights and it specifies that the rights are conferred for nursing home residents. Further, the Court reasoned that a rights-conferring statute could still be unenforceable under §1983 when the statute explicitly states that §1983 does not apply or when the enforcement mechanisms available under the statute are not compatible with §1983. However, the Court reasoned that the FNHRA does not include any enforcement provisions that are incompatible with §1983 because it does not expressly or implicitly preclude enforcement through §1983 and enforcement through §1983 would not circumvent the statute’s remedial procedures. Affirmed.