What Two 2026 New Jersey Appellate Decisions Mean for Families Suing a Nursing Home

The short answer: New Jersey gives nursing home residents a statutory right to “a safe and decent living environment and considerate and respectful care,” and a resident whose rights are violated can sue for damages and recover attorney’s fees. Two decisions published by the Appellate Division in 2026 define the edges of that right. In Estate of Sahar v. 301 Union Street, decided August 24, 2026, the court upheld a $525,000 jury award to the estate of an 83-year-old stroke patient who fell during a 35-day rehabilitation stay, rejecting the facility’s argument that its short-term unit was not a nursing home at all. In Emmons v. Elmwood Hills Healthcare Center, decided March 20, 2026, the court held that a family that won a $100,000 negligence verdict over a resident’s pressure injuries could not collect attorney’s fees under the Act because the jury had not found that a rights violation caused the harm.

Read together, the two cases tell families what the Act can do and what it demands. This article explains both, drawing on the published opinions. Milvidskiy Law Group did not represent any party in either matter.

FREE WEBINAR

5 Things to Know About

Estate Planning

When You Turn Sixty-Five

Save the Date

Friday, Sep 25^th at 2:30pm

What Does the New Jersey Nursing Home Act Give Residents?

The Nursing Home Responsibilities and Rights of Residents Act, at N.J.S.A. 30:13-1 through 30:13-19, was enacted in 1976 to protect residents from what the Legislature called “inferior treatment.” It lists resident rights, among them the right in N.J.S.A. 30:13-5(j) to “a safe and decent living environment and considerate and respectful care that recognizes the dignity and individuality of the resident.” Section 30:13-8(a) gives any resident whose rights are violated a cause of action against the violator, allows recovery of actual and punitive damages, and provides that a prevailing plaintiff “shall” be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.

That fee-shifting provision is what makes the Act different from an ordinary negligence claim. Nursing home cases are expensive to bring and often involve modest damages because the victims are elderly and frail. Mandatory fees change the economics. The two 2026 decisions turn on when a plaintiff has earned them.

Estate of Sahar: A Fall in a Rehabilitation Unit and a $525,000 Verdict

Renee Sahar was 83 when she was admitted to Care One at Wellington on March 3, 2016, after a stroke and a stay at a rehabilitation hospital. She was partially paralyzed, had difficulty with motor function and self-care, needed help to rise from bed, walk, use the toilet, and dress, and had dementia with periods of confusion. Her family expected her to go home after physical, occupational, and speech therapy. On admission the facility performed a fall risk assessment that, according to testimony recounted in the opinion, noted “poor recall judgment” and “poor safety awareness.”

During the night of April 6, 2016, she fell and broke her hip. She had hip surgery, returned to the rehabilitation hospital, and eventually went home to live with her son. She had been at Care One for 35 days. She later died of unrelated causes, and her estate pursued the lawsuit.

The estate brought two claims: nursing negligence, and a violation of the Nursing Home Act. The negligence claim focused on the fall itself and the facility’s failure to provide an appropriate wheelchair with restraints or adequate nursing care. The Act claim was based on different conduct: the opinion describes it as “humiliating [Renee] . . . by forcing her to urinate in her wheelchair, failing to answer her call bell, and forcing her to live in an environment that was unsafe.”

The jury found that Care One had not deviated from the standard of care on the negligence claim. It found unanimously that Care One had violated the Act and that the violation caused $525,000 in damages. With prejudgment interest, a Medicare lien, costs, and $208,770 in attorney’s fees under the Act, the final judgment entered in November 2024 totaled $986,855.68.

What Care One Argued, and Why the Court Rejected It

On appeal, Care One made three arguments. First, it said the Act did not apply because Renee was admitted for short-term rehabilitation in a subacute unit rather than as a long-term resident. Second, it said the estate had improperly recast a malpractice claim as a rights claim using the same facts and the same damages. Third, it argued that the “safe and decent living environment” language was unconstitutionally vague.

The Appellate Division affirmed on every point. On the first, the court held that Care One was licensed and operated as a facility providing nursing care to two or more unrelated individuals, which is the statutory definition of a nursing home, and that Renee received extended care there, which made her a resident with all the rights the Act lists. The court reviewed the legislative history of subacute care units and concluded there was no evidence Care One operated as anything other than a nursing home. The label a facility puts on a wing does not take its patients outside the Act.

On the second, the court held that the Act claim rested on conduct distinct from the negligence claim. Care One had argued that failures to answer a call bell or yelling at a resident were “not linked to any harm” that would support money damages. The court called that argument contrary to the express terms of the Act. A jury may compensate a resident for indignity and unsafe conditions even when it finds the specific injury was not the product of negligence, so long as the damages are not duplicated. The court also agreed with Care One on one narrow point, that section 30:13-5(j) does not create a negligence per se claim, but held that the jury had been properly instructed on the rights claim as a separate theory.

Emmons v. Elmwood Hills: A Negligence Verdict Without Nursing Home Act Fees

Joseph Emmons Jr. lived at Elmwood Hills Healthcare Center in Blackwood from October 26, 2019 until May 23, 2020. He arrived with a history of deep tissue pressure injuries developed during earlier hospitalizations, significant cognitive dysfunction, and no ability to walk. Elmwood Hills placed him on a care plan for risk of skin breakdown. In March or April 2020 he developed a new pressure injury on his right buttock and hip, a wound specialist was brought in on April 14, 2020, and a podiatrist later found additional pressure injuries on his heels. He was transferred to a hospital on May 23, 2020 and died eight days later.

His son sued for negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and violations of the Nursing Home Act, alleging the facility let the pressure injuries go untreated for too long. Before trial, Elmwood Hills made a $150,000 offer of judgment, which the family rejected. The jury found Elmwood Hills negligent and awarded $100,000. The jury also found a violation of the Act, but, instructed not to duplicate damages and to award separate damages for each theory, it awarded nothing on the Act claim.

The family then asked for attorney’s fees under the Act. The trial judge refused, reasoning that the family had not prevailed on the Act claim because it had not proved damages caused by a rights violation. The Appellate Division affirmed in a published opinion. Its holding is direct: “a plaintiff must prove proximate cause as a result of an NHA violation in order to be considered a prevailing party under the NHA.” The Act speaks of “actual” damages, which the court read to require real rather than nominal or presumed harm, and a damages award on a separate negligence claim is “irrelevant” to fees under the Act because “the causes of action and factual bases are distinct.”

The family also lost any claim to fees under the offer-of-judgment rule, because the $100,000 verdict was less than 80 percent of the $150,000 offer. The family did not appeal that ruling.

What the Two Decisions Mean Together

The cases are two sides of the same principle. The Act protects a distinct set of interests, dignity, safety, respectful treatment, and a plaintiff who proves that those interests were violated and that the violation caused actual harm gets damages plus mandatory fees, even if the medical negligence claim fails. A plaintiff who proves negligence but cannot connect a rights violation to any separate harm gets negligence damages and nothing under the Act.

For families, the practical lessons are these:

• Short-term stays count. A parent admitted for two weeks of rehabilitation after a hospital discharge has the same statutory rights as a long-term resident. Facilities have argued otherwise and lost.
• Document the indignities, not only the injury. The Sahar verdict rested on unanswered call bells, being made to urinate in a wheelchair, and an unsafe environment. Those facts came from family members and the record. Keep a log of what you observe on visits, with dates and names.
• Understand that the two claims are separate. A lawyer evaluating a case should be able to explain what the rights violation is, apart from the medical error, and what harm flowed from it. Emmons shows the cost of a rights claim that does not carry its own damages.
• Weigh settlement offers carefully. New Jersey’s offer-of-judgment rule can strip a winning plaintiff of fees if the verdict falls too far below a rejected offer.
• Act on early warning signs. Both residents were known fall or skin-breakdown risks on admission. A family that sees a care plan on paper and no matching care in practice should escalate to the administrator, the Department of Health, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman in writing, and should do it early.

Where to Report Problems in a New Jersey Facility

The New Jersey Department of Health takes complaints about nursing homes and assisted living facilities around the clock at 1-800-792-9770 and through an online form, and accepts anonymous complaints. The New Jersey Long-Term Care Ombudsman investigates abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents in nursing homes, assisted living, and other licensed settings at 1-877-582-6995. A written complaint to the facility’s administrator, kept with a copy, is the first step and creates the record that later matters.

Our article on what to do if you suspect neglect or abuse in a nursing home covers the immediate steps.

Plan Well. Live Better.

Most nursing home problems never become lawsuits, and the families best positioned to protect a parent are the ones who understand their rights before a crisis. At Milvidskiy Law Group, we help families plan for long-term care, review admission agreements, and understand a resident’s rights, and we refer litigation matters to counsel who handle them. Learn more about our elder law services.

Milvidskiy Law Group did not represent any party in Estate of Sahar v. 301 Union Street, LLC or Emmons v. Elmwood Hills Healthcare Center, LLC. This article is drawn from the published opinions of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, and is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The facts described are as recounted by the court. Deadlines, procedural rules, and statutory provisions change; the decisions and statutes described were verified in September 2026 and should be confirmed before relying on them in a specific matter.