Estate of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the legislature intended to provide elderly population greater protection than already provided under other civil remedies, and APSA claims and medical malpractice claims are not mutually exclusive
• stating that a court cannot conclude the legislature meant to require a showing of gross negligence when it did not include the specific language it included in other statutes
• explaining that § 1-214(B) is “a permissive statute” and allows courts to interpret the singular as the plural “when such an interpretation will enable us to carry out legislative intent.”
• holding APSA not limited by any other civil remedy
• declining to read a gross-negligence standard of care into a statute where legislature created that standard in other statutes but did not in the statute at issue
• refusing to read “gross negligence” into a statute because “[t]he legislature surely knows how to require a showing of gross negligence, having used that term in a great number of statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).