Ark. Code Ann. § 20-10-1209 (2026)
Civil enforcement
-
- Any resident who is injured by a deprivation or infringement of his or her rights as specified in this subchapter may bring a cause of action under § 16-114-201 et seq., against any licensee responsible for the deprivation or infringement.
- The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian or by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident.
- The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the injury occurred or where the licensee is located to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages.
- The resident may seek to recover actual damages when there is a finding that an employee of the long-term care facility failed to do something which a reasonably careful person would do or did something which a reasonable person would not do under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence in the case, which caused an injury due to an infringement or a deprivation of the resident's rights.
- No separate award of attorney's fees may be made by the court.
-
- A licensee shall not be liable for the medical negligence of any physician rendering care or treatment to the resident, except for the services of a medical director as required in this subchapter.
- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to protect a licensee from liability for failure to provide a resident with appropriate observation, assessment, nursing diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation of care by nursing staff.
- For the purpose of this section, punitive damages may be awarded for conduct which is willful, wanton, gross or flagrant, reckless, or consciously indifferent to the rights of the resident.
-
- A deprivation or infringement of rights under this subchapter does not itself create an additional cause of action.
- However, a deprivation or infringement of rights under this subchapter may be used as evidence of negligence.
History. Acts 1999, No. 1181, § 4; 2013, No. 1196, §§ 5, 6.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2013, No. 1196, § 1, provided: “Intent — Limitation.
“(a) This act is intended to ensure that:
“(1) A person who suffers a medical injury has the opportunity to seek compensation to return to the state of health that he or she enjoyed before the medical injury; and
“(2) For any one (1) medical injury, a person is not compensated more than once.
“(b) This act is not intended to affect punitive damages.”
Amendments. The 2013 amendment inserted “under § 16-114-201 et seq.” in (a)(1); and added (d).
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Health Law — The Arkansas Resident's Rights Statute and Civil Enforcement — Cutting Off Its Nose To Spite Its Face: How the Arkansas Resident's Rights Statute Is Defeating Its Purpose of Improving Quality of Care to Nursing Home Residents by Crippling the Nursing Homes Themselves. Health Facilities Management Corp. v. Hughes, 29 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 597.
Case Notes
In General.
Judgment in favor of executrix of deceased nursing home facility resident's estate on claims brought under subdivision (a)(1) of this section against a management company and nursing home facility was reversed as to the management company because no license was issued to the management company; thus, under the plain language of § 20-10-224, the management company was not a licensee subject to suit for violation of the resident's rights. Health Facilities Mgmt. Corp. v. Hughes, 365 Ark. 237, 227 S.W.3d 910 (2006) (decision under former law).
Construction.
Jury verdict in favor of nursing home facility on the medical malpractice and wrongful death claims did not exonerate it from wrongdoing under the Arkansas Long-Term Care Facilities Code, § 20-10-224; even though the causes of action were tried together, the resident's-rights claim under subdivision (a)(1) of this section was a statutory claim separate and apart from the common-law claim of ordinary negligence, and the jury was entitled to reach conflicting results in relation to those claims. Health Facilities Mgmt. Corp. v. Hughes, 365 Ark. 237, 227 S.W.3d 910 (2006) (decision under former law).
Directed Verdict.
Directed verdict was appropriate in a case alleging a violation of the Arkansas Resident's Rights Act, even though it was not subsumed in a medical malpractice claim, because co-administrators made only conclusory arguments that they proffered sufficient evidence relating to proximate cause. They did not point to any evidence linking the alleged violations to a resident's death or injuries. Smith v. Heather Manor Care Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 584, 424 S.W.3d 368 (2012) (decision under former law).
Jury Instructions.
Trial court erred in a medical malpractice action in not including in an instruction to the jury the causation element required in subsection (a) of this section when damages were sought for a violation of a nursing home resident's rights. Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75, 386 S.W.3d 493 (2012) (decision under former law).