In an ideal world, justice would be equally and readily available no matter where a person is injured. This is especially true in nursing home abuse cases. Families place their loved ones in nursing homes so they can receive the care they need and deserve. It should not matter where the nursing home is located if they injure the very people they are supposed to be protecting. Unfortunately this is not case, as many states make it difficult for families to discover.
Kansas is one state where it is more difficult for families to recover when their loved ones are damaged. The state has installed damage caps which limit how much can be recovered when the elderly are injured. The caps disproportionately hurt elderly persons in nursing homes since they limit non-economic damages and elders typically do not have other damages such as lost wages. Ideology of judges also poses barriers to full recovery for families in Kansas. Thankfully, federal courts can provide superior remedies to Kansas victims of nursing home abuse and negligence.
Federal courts in Kansas provide a much fairer forum for nursing home litigation plaintiffs. The advantages are mapped out specifically in the Vance case. The case states that punitive damages can be alleged in the complaint, unlike under state law. Similarly, a jury trial on the issue of punitive damages is allowed in Kansas Federal Court. Given these advantages, Federal Court is an enticing option for plaintiffs of nursing home litigation in Kansas, when possible.
If you or a family member have been injured by a nursing home, we encourage you to contact our law firm. Nursing homes promise to protect and care for their residents, but often injure the very people the claimed they would protect. When this happens, you deserve to recover fully for your injuries. We offer assistance with the complex legal and medical issues your claim involves, along with the respect and compassion you deserve. Contact us for your free consultation.
 See Vance ex rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transp., Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1090 (D. Kan. 2004).
 See id at 1093.