Court Opinion

ID: 9893489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 14:07:24.157141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:17.497603
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: OCTOBER 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0669-MR

COLIN MULHALL, AS EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL
MULHALL                                                             APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 16-CI-005102

SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING
MANAGEMENT, INC.; AND
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING
SERVICES, INC.                                                       APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; EASTON AND KAREM, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: The Appellant, Colin Mulhall (“Colin”), as Executrix of the

Estate of Carol Mulhall, appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s Order granting

Summary Judgment to the Appellee, Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.
(“Sunrise”). The circuit court held that Colin did not have qualified expert

testimony to establish the relevant standard of care, breach of duty, or causation of

injury leading to the damages claimed; therefore, Sunrise was entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law,

we affirm.

                         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                Carol Mulhall (“Carol”) was Colin’s mother. Carol was diagnosed

with vascular dementia in 2012. Soon after, Carol executed a Durable Power of

Attorney and a Healthcare Power of Attorney, designating Colin as her Health

Care Surrogate. In 2015, Carol began showing increasing symptoms of her

vascular dementia, including anxiety, agitation, and short-term memory loss.

Carol became a resident of Sunrise on December 18, 2015.

                Sunrise is a Personal Care Home (“PCH”). A PCH is a statutory

creation in Kentucky, governed by KRS1 216.597. It is like an Assisted Living

Community but has fewer licensing requirements. A PCH “means an

establishment located in a permanent building that does not comply with the

physical plant requirements of KRS 194A.703,[2] has resident beds, and provides:

1) Supervision of residents; (2) Basic health and health-related services; (3)

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
    Statute governing Assisted Living Communities.
                                              -2-
Personal care services; (4) Residential care services; and (5) Social and

recreational activities.” KRS 216.597(1)(b). Sunrise had a dedicated memory care

unit, which was where Carol resided.

             Colin and her brother, Sean Mulhall (“Sean”), testified in their

depositions that Sunrise’s Director, Brandie Windsor (“Windsor”), advised the

family not to visit for the first few weeks to allow Carol to adjust. Both testified

this was surprising advice to them, as they typically visited Carol almost every day.

Colin further testified that they did initially stay away from Sunrise but that she

called daily asking for updates on Carol.

             Colin learned Carol was exhibiting aggressive behavior, increasing

agitation, and was refusing to take her medication. Windsor also informed Colin

that Carol had a “boyfriend,” a fellow resident in Sunrise’s memory care unit.

Colin testified Windsor told her that Carol and this male resident sat together and

held hands. Colin further stated Windsor informed her it was more of a “love

triangle,” as this male resident also appeared to have a relationship with another

female resident. Colin testified this information concerned her, so she decided to

visit Carol at Sunrise soon after.

             Colin stated when she visited Sunrise, she found Carol in this male

resident’s room, with the door closed. She further testified that Carol told her that

                                          -3-
this resident slept in her bed at night. Colin stated this troubled her greatly, so she

spoke with Windsor about it.

             Colin believed her mother did not have the capacity to consensually

engage in this type of relationship. She addressed her concerns with Windsor, who

agreed that Carol probably did not have the cognitive ability to make this decision,

but there was “nothing she could do about it.” Windsor testified in her deposition

that the relationship did not concern her, as the interactions between Carol and this

male resident appeared to be consensual.

             Further progress notes indicate that Carol became more aggressive

and agitated. She pushed another resident, slammed doors, and hit other residents

and a nurse. Colin was also informed that Carol had been refusing medication.

For example, as of approximately January 21, 2016, Carol had missed eight out of

her last twenty doses of Xanax because she refused to take them.

             Sean testified that he spoke with an employee at Sunrise, who

informed him Carol and another female resident had several altercations. He was

told the other resident was the woman who was also in a relationship with the male

resident Carol was spending time with. This employee told Sean that any time this

male resident would pay attention to anyone other than Carol, Carol would get

jealous. Carol and the other female resident had been in several physical and

verbal altercations regarding the male resident.

                                          -4-
                  On January 26, 2016, Colin was advised by Windsor that Carol

required in-patient psychiatric hospitalization. Windsor and Colin arranged for

Carol to be taken to The Brook.3 Prior to leaving Sunrise to transport Carol to The

Brook, Colin witnessed the male resident kiss Carol. She also testified that this

male resident was wearing Carol’s pants.

                 Carol spent approximately three weeks at The Brook. There was no

evidence offered of any interpersonal relationship for Carol at that facility. Yet

during Carol’s stay there, she became increasingly agitated and aggressive, leading

her to be given Ativan. Colin testified the Ativan sedated Carol to the point of her

being unresponsive. Colin further testified that Carol declined significantly while

at The Brook. She became incontinent and began to need assistance with activities

of daily living which she was previously able to do independently. Carol did not

return to Sunrise after her discharge from The Brook. She lived with Colin for a

while, had another psychiatric hospitalization, and then eventually was placed in a

skilled nursing facility in Indiana.

                 Colin filed a Complaint against Sunrise in the Jefferson Circuit Court

on October 13, 2016, alleging negligence, medical negligence, corporate

3
    A psychiatric hospital located in Louisville.
                                                    -5-
negligence, violations of Kentucky’s Long Term Care Residents’ Rights statute,4

and separate causes of actions against Windsor as administrator.

                On March 30, 2020, Carol passed away. Colin filed a motion to

revive the action and substitute the estate as the plaintiff, which the circuit court

granted. The circuit court additionally granted Sunrise’s motion to enforce a jury

trial waiver that Colin signed as part of Carol’s admission paperwork. In October

2021, the circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Sunrise, dismissing

Colin’s claims based on negligence per se under all federal statutes and under KRS

216B.072. This order also dismissed all claims against Windsor as the

administrator. The circuit court allowed the negligence claims based on KRS

216.515 and KRS 209.005 et seq. to proceed.

                When setting the trial date for this case, the circuit court established

deadlines for the disclosure of experts. In compliance with this directive, Colin

disclosed two expert witnesses: Byron Arbeit, a former nursing home

administrator and long-term care industry expert and Dr. Thomas Sullivan, a

neuropsychologist. Sunrise disclosed as their experts Dr. G. Paul Eleazer and RN5

Janine Lehman. Because of the deadline applied, the circuit court was authorized

to evaluate summary judgment based on the expert opinions timely disclosed. See

4
    KRS 216.515.
5
    Registered Nurse.
                                             -6-
Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665, 675 (Ky. 2010). The deposition

testimony of the experts is summarized below.

             Byron Arbeit (“Arbeit”) testified it was a violation of the standard of

care for Sunrise to allow Carol to be involved in an intimate relationship with

another resident without the consent and permission of Carol’s healthcare

representative. He stated Carol did not have the capacity to consent to such a

relationship. Arbeit testified Sunrise failed to provide adequate supervision and

monitoring of the residents.

             Arbeit further testified it was a breach of care for Windsor to fail to

inform Colin of Carol’s increasing agitation and aggression, and that she should

have asked for assistance from the family. He claimed Sunrise failed to properly

document Carol’s changes in condition and failed to advise her family. Arbeit

stated Sunrise failed to follow physician orders regarding Carol’s medication,

specifically, her Xanax prescription. He testified their failure to provide Carol

with her anti-anxiety medication as prescribed constituted physical and mental

abuse. He further testified he believed there was a strong possibility of drug

diversion, as there was inconsistency in the medication records.

             Dr. Sullivan is a neuropsychologist. He testified he regularly treats

patients with vascular dementia. He testified because Carol and the male resident

were cognitively impaired, Sunrise had a duty to intervene. He stated it was “poor

                                          -7-
judgment” for the facility to allow the relationship because of the strong emotions

it raised for Carol. He stated Carol’s quick deterioration during her short residency

at Sunrise was not typical for her medical condition. Dr. Sullivan also opined that

Sunrise’s advice to Carol’s family to not visit was a cause of her decline and likely

exacerbated her emotional and behavioral problems. He testified Carol should

have been given Xanax twice daily to ease her transition, and that the failure to

administer the Xanax led to her increased anxiety and agitation. Dr. Sullivan also

stated it was “unusual” that Carol required an in-patient hospitalization in a

psychiatric facility.

                 Dr. G. Paul Eleazer testified for Sunrise. He opined that Sunrise met

the applicable standard of care and that no act or omission by the staff caused

Carol any injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability. He further

testified there was no evidence of any abuse. Regarding Carol’s relationship with

the male resident, he stated there was really no way to stop the relationship from

occurring, short of recommending that one of them leave the facility. He also

testified that any attempt to intervene in the relationship would “likely have made

things worse.”6

                 Janine Lehman was Sunrise’s second expert to testify. Ms. Lehman is

a registered nurse who is a nursing standard of care expert. She testified Sunrise

6
    Dr. Paul Eleazer Deposition, January 5, 2022.
                                                -8-
met the applicable standard of nursing care in its care and treatment of Carol. She

also testified she saw no evidence of abuse. Further testimony will be discussed

below.

             On December 22, 2021, Sunrise again filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment on Colin’s remaining claims, on the basis that Colin could not present

any genuine issue of material fact, as she provided no expert testimony that could

show breach of a duty of care or causation of any injury to Carol. The circuit court

heard oral arguments on April 25, 2022. It entered a written order on May 12,

2022, granting summary judgment to Sunrise. The circuit court found neither of

Colin’s expert witnesses qualified to testify about the applicable standard of care or

medical causation.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             “The standard of review of a trial court’s granting of summary

judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine

issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. Summary judgment is proper when it appears that it would be

impossible for the adverse party to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment

in its favor.” Andrew v. Begley, 203 S.W.3d 165, 169 (Ky. App. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). “Because summary judgment involves

only legal questions and the existence of any disputed material issues of fact, an

                                         -9-
appellate court need not defer to the trial court’s decision and will review the issue

de novo.” Jenkins v. Best, 250 S.W.3d 680, 688 (Ky. App. 2007).

             “In reviewing the exclusion of expert witness testimony, this Court

applies an abuse of discretion standard.” Jackson v. Ghayoumi, 419 S.W.3d 40, 43

(Ky. App. 2012). “The trial court has discretion to control the presentation of

evidence. In the absence of any abuse, the reviewing court will not reverse the

decision of the trial judge.” Pendleton v. Commonwealth, 685 S.W.2d 549, 554

(Ky. 1985). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision

was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair or unsupported by sound legal principles.”

Woodard v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 63, 67 (Ky. 2004).

                                    ANALYSIS

             The allegations against Sunrise that survived the circuit court’s

granting of partial summary judgment in October 2021 are 1) Sunrise breached the

standard of care by failing to obtain Colin’s consent for Carol to be in an intimate

relationship with another resident, which caused her emotional distress; 2) lack of

supervision (specifically regarding the relationship between Carol and another

resident); 3) lack of adequate intervention and care planning; 4) failure to follow

physician orders regarding medication and possible drug diversion; and 5) other

violations of the Kentucky Residents’ Rights Act.

                                         -10-
             Colin argues that as Carol’s healthcare representative, Sunrise should

have sought Colin’s consent to allow Carol to engage in an intimate relationship

with another resident. Colin claims Carol did not have the cognitive capacity to

consent to this relationship, and it caused Carol emotional distress. Colin asserts

this was a direct cause of Carol’s agitation and aggression, which led to her being

hospitalized at The Brook.

            Colin additionally alleges Sunrise failed to follow Carol’s doctor’s

orders regarding Carol’s prescription of Xanax. Colin claims that allowing Carol

to refuse multiple doses of Xanax caused her increased anxiety and mental decline.

Finally, Colin alleges Sunrise violated the Kentucky Residents Rights’ Act by

failing to keep Carol’s family informed of her condition. Colin argues the family

would have been able to assist with Carol’s care and prevent the eventual

hospitalization.

             Ultimately, the surviving allegations are claims of negligence and

negligence per se pursuant to KRS 209.005 et seq. and KRS 216.515. For a “cause

of action based on negligence, a plaintiff must establish a duty on the defendant, a

breach of the duty, and a causal connection between the breach of the duty and an

injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Lewis v. B & R Corporation, 56 S.W.3d 432, 436-

37 (Ky. App. 2001) (emphasis added). In a standard medical negligence case, a

plaintiff must prove the applicable medical standard of care, a breach of that care,

                                        -11-
and an injury resulting from that breach of care. Blankenship, supra, at 675. To

survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must present a genuine issue of material fact

for every element. See Begley, supra, at 169.

                “Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice is

generally required to put forth expert testimony to show that the defendant medical

provider failed to conform to the standard of care.” Blankenship, supra, at 670.

                KRE7 702 is the rule that applies to expert testimony. It states:

                If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
                will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
                to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
                expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
                education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion
                or otherwise, if:

                       (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or
                           data;

                       (2) The testimony is the product of reliable
                           principles and methods; and

                       (3) The witness has applied the principles and
                           methods reliably to the facts of the case.

                Pursuant to Stringer v. Commonwealth:

                Expert opinion evidence is admissible so long as (1) the
                witness is qualified to render an opinion on the subject
                matter, (2) the subject matter satisfies the requirements of
                Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
                579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), (3) the
                subject matter satisfies the test of relevancy set forth in

7
    Kentucky Rules of Evidence.
                                            -12-
              KRE 401, subject to the balancing of probativeness
              against prejudice required by KRE 403, and (4) the
              opinion will assist the trier of fact per KRE 702.

956 S.W.2d 883, 891 (Ky. 1997).

              A trial court must make several findings before a party is allowed to

introduce expert testimony. It must first determine that an expert witness is

qualified to testify about a particular issue. In this case, the issue was not whether

Colin’s experts could meet the Daubert criteria as to the area about which they

offered to testify. Rather, the question was whether their respective areas of

expertise could provide the required evidence for the negligence claims asserted in

this case in which damages were sought for medical or psychiatric treatment. The

circuit court in this instance found Colin’s experts were unqualified to testify

regarding the medical standards of care in a PCH and causation of Carol’s claimed

injury and damages.

              Colin’s first expert witness was Arbeit. Colin claimed Arbeit could

testify as to the standards of care in a PCH. Colin asserted Arbeit was an expert in

long-term care facilities, including PCHs such as Sunrise. The circuit court

disagreed and ruled that because Arbeit could not testify as to any nursing or other

medical standards of care, he is unqualified. Colin asserts the negligence in this

action is not due to medical negligence, but administrative negligence on the part

of Sunrise.

                                         -13-
                Arbeit was previously an administrator of several long-term care

homes in the 1980s and 1990s. His most recent year as a director of a nursing

home was in Indiana in 1997. He has never worked as an administrator in

Kentucky. Arbeit testified that a PCH is a creation of statute in Kentucky, and it is

not covered by Medicare or Medicaid regulations. They are not covered by any

federal statute or regulation.

                Arbeit has never worked in any capacity in a PCH. He has no medical

training as a physician or as a nurse. He specifically states in his deposition, “I

would not be providing any medical opinion whatsoever.”8 He further stated, “I’m

going to give no opinions about any physician in this case. Any opinion that may

deal with a nurse would be – I don’t give any opinions that would be strictly within

the nursing province of care. I will be giving opinions that can involve nursing

dealing with the administration of personal care homes because those nurses are

employed by the administrator. . . .”9

                The circuit court believed Arbeit was criticizing Sunrise for issues in

the realm of nursing standards, not simply administration issues. Arbeit has been

determined by other courts as not qualified to give opinions relating to medical

8
    Deposition of Byron Arbeit, December 3, 2021.
9
    Id.
                                              -14-
negligence.10 Ultimately, our analysis need not turn on Arbeit’s testimony

regarding an administrative standard of care. We need not delve into the difficult

question of whether and when a PCH should intervene in the personal relationships

of those with dementia. Regardless of any violation of administrative duties that

may have occurred here, Colin still must show that any breach of a standard of care

(administrative or otherwise) caused Carol’s claimed injury to survive summary

judgment.

             The circuit court determined Dr. Sullivan was not qualified to testify

regarding medical causation. Dr. Sullivan is a neuropsychologist. He is not a

physician or a nurse, and he cannot prescribe medication. He specifically

answered in his deposition that he would not be able to offer any opinions on the

standard of care for a nurse or regarding the practice of medicine. He stated he

would not be offering any opinions on whether any medication at any dose caused

any patient behavior. He additionally testified he could not state that any omission

of care at Sunrise was the cause for Carol needing in-patient psychiatric care. He

stated he could not say that if Carol had been given more doses of Xanax, she

would not have had the incidents and altercations. He testified her symptoms –

aggression, paranoia, agitation, anxiety, and mental decline – were all symptoms of

10
 See Husby v. South Alabama Nursing Home, Inc., 712 So.2d 750 (Ala. 1998); Barker v. Glen
Meadows Nursing Home, No. CA2008-06-145, 2009 WL 1581137 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2009).
                                          -15-
vascular dementia, and he could not say with any degree of certainty that she

would not have had these experiences without the care she received at Sunrise.

                 An expert opinion on causation “must be based ‘on reasonable

medical probability and not speculation or possibility.’” Morris v. Boerste, 641

S.W.3d 688, 698 (Ky. App. 2022) (quoting Sakler v. Anesthesiology Associates,

P.S.C., 50 S.W.3d 210, 213 (Ky. App. 2001)). Neither of Colin’s proposed experts

could state that Carol’s decline was caused by any action or inaction on the part of

anyone at Sunrise.

                  On the other hand, Sunrise’s experts – a physician and a nurse –

testified that all actions taken by Sunrise staff met the standard of care and that no

action or inaction caused Carol’s cognitive decline. Regarding the Xanax

prescription, Lehman testified that the staff at Sunrise could not force Carol to take

her medication. Significantly, the prescription of Xanax was “PRN”11 or as

needed. Lehman testified “everybody thinks, well, now we can put them in a

nursing home and – and one of the things that upsets me a lot is the family was

inferring that they could hide her medications in food, and in drink, and things like

that. You cannot do that. It is the resident’s right to know that you’re giving them

medications. So, if you’re going to hide it in other food, that is specifically

11
     Latin term pro re nata, translated “as the thing is needed.”
                                                  -16-
something that is not appropriate. You are not giving that resident the right to

refuse.”12

                 Negligence cannot be assumed merely from a poor outcome of a

patient. Meador v. Arnold, 94 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Ky. 1936). Negligence cannot

simply be inferred from an “undesirable result,” and expert testimony is required.

Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Ky. 1992). Dr. Sullivan stated it was

unusual that Carol’s condition declined so quickly in the five weeks she was at

Sunrise. Dr. Sullivan also testified that he could not state that Carol’s

hospitalization would not have occurred without any actions taken by staff

members at Sunrise. He additionally testified that Carol had documented incidents

of aggression and paranoia both before and after her residency at Sunrise. It is

perhaps not coincidental that decline was separately noted at The Brook, where

there was no report of inadequate administrative care such as that alleged against

Sunrise.

                 Colin’s primary allegation of negligence involving Carol’s care

revolved around the relationship Carol had with another resident. Both Arbeit and

Dr. Sullivan testified that this relationship should not have been allowed. Arbeit

testified he believed Sunrise’s failure to stop this relationship was a breach of an

administrative standard of care. But the circuit court correctly held that Colin

12
     Deposition of Janine Lehman, January 18, 2022.
                                              -17-
lacked the authority to restrict Carol’s intimate relationship with another resident

because she did not have guardianship of Carol. Both Sunrise and the circuit court

point to KRS 216.515(11), which states: “Residents may associate and

communicate privately with persons of their choice and send and receive personal

mail unopened.”

             It is undisputed that Colin did not have guardianship over Carol. It is

also undisputed that Colin did have a valid durable power of attorney and

healthcare power of attorney executed by Carol. Colin argues that because she

possesses these power of attorney documents, that Colin must be the one to

consent to this type of relationship. We find this argument to be without merit.

             KRS 311.621(8) defines health care decision as “consenting to, or

withdrawing consent for, any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention.”

Colin argues that this gives her the authority to govern whether Carol is permitted

to engage in an intimate relationship with another resident. The circuit court did

not believe that this decision was within the realm of a “medical decision.”

Neither do we. Colin cites no authority for the proposition that the ability to have a

relationship with another resident in a PCH is a medical decision. Nor was this

Court able to find such authority.

             Sunrise argued, and the circuit court agreed, that KRS 216.515(11)

mandates the opposite of what Colin is arguing, that Sunrise prohibiting the

                                         -18-
relationship may be a violation of law. We agree with this finding by the circuit

court. KRS 216.515(17) states “if the resident is adjudicated mentally disabled in

accordance with state law, the resident’s guardian shall act on the resident’s behalf

in order that his rights be implemented.” Again, it is undisputed that Carol had not

been deemed legally disabled. Nowhere in Carol’s Power of Attorney documents

does it state that Carol gives Colin the right to decide who she may associate with.

Colin is asking this Court to elevate a power of attorney to the level of a

guardianship, which is contrary to law.13 A power of attorney can be revoked at

any time by the principal. A guardianship gives the guardian authority to make the

types of decisions Colin was seeking in this case, while having the safeguards of a

legal proceeding to prevent abuse.

              Colin additionally asserted claims of negligence per se pursuant to

KRS 216.515, also known as the Kentucky Residents’ Rights Act. “Negligence

per se ‘is merely a negligence claim with a statutory standard of care substituted

for the common law standard of care.’” Young v. Carran, 289 S.W.3d 586, 588-89

(Ky. App. 2008). Colin made allegations of violations of several rights in her

Complaint, which include “(18) Each resident shall be treated with consideration,

respect, and full recognition of his dignity and individuality, including privacy in

13
 Nor is it necessary. KRS 387.740 sets out the process for seeking emergency guardianship,
which requires a review not more than one week after a petition is filed. KRS 387.740(3).
Nothing prevented Colin or someone with Sunrise for that matter obtaining guardianship powers.
                                            -19-
treatment and in care for his personal needs”; “(19) Every resident and the

responsible party or his responsible family member or his guardian has the right to

be fully informed of the residents’ medical condition unless medically

contraindicated and document by a physical in the resident’s medical record”; and

“(22) The resident’s responsible party or family member or his guardian shall be

notified immediately of any accident, sudden illness, disease, unexplained absence,

or anything unusual involving the resident.”

             We must first note that many of the rights set forth in KRS 216.515

are more specific assertions of a common law personal injury action, and therefore

they do not create any new theory of liability. Overstreet v. Kindred Nursing

Centers Limited Partnership, 479 S.W.3d 69, 75 (Ky. 2015). Others, however, do

not correspond with a common law personal injury. Therefore, those rights exist

independent of any claim for personal injury. Id.

            The Kentucky Supreme Court has determined “to the extent that the

claims are based upon liabilities created by KRS 216.515, and are not simply

restatements of the common law personal injury action, KRS 411.140 does not

provide for their survival beyond the death of the resident.” Id. at 77. These are

rights personal to the resident, not a source of damages for heirs. At the time

Sunrise sought summary judgment, Carol had passed away. Sunrise was therefore

entitled to summary judgment on these claims.

                                        -20-
             The circuit court did not specifically address Colin’s claims of

negligence regarding KRS 209.005 et seq. These statutes deal specifically with

adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation. There was no testimony or evidence

presented that Sunrise abused, neglected, or exploited Carol in any way. The

circumstances of the personal relationship allowed do not constitute abuse or

neglect. Sunrise is entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well. Because

Colin is unable to present any evidence that Sunrise was the proximate cause of

Carol’s purported injury, Carol’s estate is not entitled to any damages.

                                  CONCLUSION

            Because of the lack of qualified expert testimony regarding the

applicable standard of care and medical causation, the Appellant is unable to create

a genuine issue of material fact, and the Appellees were entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. The Jefferson Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                        -21-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE SUNRISE
                          SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
S. Wade Yeoman            INC.:
Corey Ann Finn
Louisville, Kentucky      Michael F. Sutton
                          Kevin M. Murphy
                          Louisville, Kentucky
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
                          ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
Corey Ann Finn            APPELLEE:
Louisville, Kentucky

                          Michael F. Sutton
                          Louisville, Kentucky

                        -22-