TL;DR
Claim type
Every other claim type in senior care has a moment. A fall happened at a time; a medication was given or missed; a resident walked out a door. A pressure injury has no moment. It develops over days and weeks, and the case that follows is not about an event at all. It is about whether the ordinary work of the building was performed and recorded.
That makes it the claim type where documentation quality most directly equals dollars, and the one where an operator with excellent care and mediocre charting is in genuine danger.
Last updated
01
The complaint will allege that the resident was assessed as at risk, that a plan required repositioning on a schedule with nutritional and hydration support and regular skin assessment, and that the injury developed and progressed because the plan was not followed. It will usually add a failure to notify the physician and the family as the wound advanced.
The framing is powerful for two reasons. Pressure injuries are widely understood, including by juries, as largely preventable with attentive care, which makes the injury itself read as evidence of neglect. And because the claim spans weeks, the plaintiff can point to a pattern rather than a lapse, which is the material a corporate negligence and punitive theory is built from.
In states with a statutory neglect cause of action, this is the claim type most reliably pled under it. A failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm is close to a description of what the complaint alleges.
02
Skin assessment on admission, with staging and photographs. Whether an injury was present on admission or acquired in the building is the first question and the hardest to litigate later without an admission photograph.
The repositioning record. This is the document the whole case turns on and it is the one most often thin. A turning schedule that is charted by exception, or charted in blocks at end of shift, will be attacked as not contemporaneous.
Nutrition and hydration: weights, intake, dietitian involvement, supplements ordered and whether they were taken. Malnutrition is both a cause and, in the plaintiff narrative, an independent count.
Wound care orders and whether treatment escalated as the wound did. A wound that advanced through stages with no change in the treatment plan is very difficult to defend.
Physician and family notification at each stage change, with dates. Late notification is frequently the count that survives when the clinical care is defensible.
Support surfaces: what was ordered, when it arrived, and whether it was in use. A pressure-redistributing mattress ordered and not delivered for a week is a documented gap.
03
Professional liability is the primary response. There is rarely a general liability argument, because there is no premises condition involved.
The first failure point is the neglect definition. Where the policy treats statutory neglect as a matter for the abuse and neglect endorsement, and the complaint pleads the statute, the sublimit responds rather than the full limit. For an operator in a state with a fee-shifting resident rights statute, this is the most consequential term on the policy for this claim type.
The second is the communicable disease exclusion, which is now common on senior care forms and is sometimes drafted broadly enough to reach any claim involving an infectious agent. A pressure injury that progresses to sepsis is a claim involving an infection, and a broad exclusion can be argued to apply to a claim that has nothing to do with disease transmission. Ask for a carve-back limited to claims solely based on transmission.
The third is defense treatment. These cases require wound care experts on both sides and a page-by-page chart review, so defense spend runs high relative to most claim types.
04
Photograph the wound and continue photographing on a schedule, with the resident identifier and date visible. If this was not being done before the claim, start now, and do not attempt to reconstruct earlier images.
Secure the complete chart including the flow sheets, which are often stored separately from the narrative record and are the documents that matter most.
Confirm the admission skin assessment exists and locate any admission photographs. If the injury was present on admission, that single fact reframes the case, and it has to be provable.
Identify the treating physician and the wound care consultant and preserve their notes, including any that live in a separate system.
Notice it. A pressure injury at stage three or above should meet any sensible notice-of-circumstance standard, and these claims frequently surface as demand letters one to three years after the resident has died.
Review the other residents. The most damaging discovery in this claim type is a pattern, and if a pattern exists it is better found and corrected by you, in a documented quality process, than by opposing counsel.
Follow-up questions
No, and the distinction is clinically well established: some skin breakdown is unavoidable, particularly at end of life where the skin fails as an organ. But the defense is documentary. It works where the preventive interventions were assessed, ordered and charted, and it fails where the record simply shows a wound appearing and advancing.
The repositioning record, followed by the admission skin assessment. The first shows whether the plan was executed; the second decides whether the injury is yours at all.
Because families frequently do not learn what happened until they obtain the records, and often do not obtain them until after the death and after speaking to counsel. Combined with discovery rules and tolling for incapacity, a pressure injury from one year routinely produces a demand two or three years later, which is why the notice-of-circumstance right matters so much here.
Go deeper
Other claim types
The most common serious claim in senior care. It is pled as a failure of assessment, care planning and supervision rather than as a premises defect, which is what moves it from general liability into professional liability.
The highest-severity single event in memory care and assisted living. Pled as a failure of wandering assessment and supervision, and frequently characterised as neglect, which on many policies moves it to the abuse sublimit.
High frequency, variable severity, and unusually complicated on the coverage side because the pharmacy, the prescriber, the agency nurse and the facility can each be responsible for a different link in the chain.
The highest-severity category in senior care and the one most often capped by a sublimit far below the policy limit. The claim against the operator is negligent hiring, supervision and reporting, not the act itself.
Not a claim type so much as a multiplier on every other one. It runs on a separate limitations clock, is frequently outside any arbitration agreement the resident signed, and in some states carries damages of a different character entirely.
Fast, frequently fatal, and unusually defensible or indefensible depending on two documents: the swallow evaluation and the diet order, and whether what was served matched them.
Predictable in dementia care and structurally awkward on the coverage side, because many abuse endorsements only reach acts by employees while an assault and battery exclusion can still catch the injury.
Free coverage review
Send the declarations page and the demand letter if there is one. A specialist reads which policy part responds, what the limit actually is after defense, and what to preserve, within one business day.