October 6, 2026 | Written By: Donna MacKenzie, Michigan Nursing Home Injury Lawyer
Facilities that care for elderly and recovering residents take on a serious responsibility. The people who live there move slowly, often use canes, walkers, or wheelchairs, and cannot always react quickly to a hazard. A new Michigan Court of Appeals decision confirms that these facilities must design and maintain their property with those residents in mind, and that meeting the bare minimum safety code is not enough.
The decision, Rusu v. Trilogy Healthcare of Oakland, was issued in September 2026. It is an important decision for families whose loved ones have been injured by preventable hazards in nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, and senior living facilities.
What Happened in Rusu v. Trilogy Healthcare
The injured resident was recovering from broken ribs at a rehabilitation facility. He walked slowly and used a cane. On the day he was going home, he moved through the facility’s power-operated exit doors while his daughter went ahead to bring the car closer. As he made his way through the second door, at the slow pace you would expect from an injured elderly man with a cane, the door closed on him. It knocked him to the ground and fractured his hip. He needed surgery. His daughter and staff had to use their bodies to hold the door off him as it kept trying to close.
The facility argued it was not responsible because the door worked as designed. It stayed open about 20 seconds and met the applicable industry standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back so it can move forward toward a jury.
The Ruling That Matters Most for Senior Care: Safety Is Judged for the Residents Who Actually Live There
The heart of the decision is simple and powerful. The Court agreed there was no evidence the door malfunctioned or broke any safety standard, and it still allowed the case to proceed.
The reason is that the facility served injured and elderly residents. People like that move slowly and often depend on mobility aids. The Court held that it was foreseeable a resident could be struck by a power-operated door if they did not clear the doorway fast enough. Because of that, a jury could decide whether the facility should have done more, such as setting the door to stay open longer, installing a presence sensor to hold the door while someone is still in the doorway, or adding a mat that detects a person in the door’s path.
This is the principle families should take away: a care facility cannot design its property as though every resident is young and quick. Safety is measured against the actual, vulnerable people the facility chose to serve.
Meeting Code Is Not a Complete Defense
Care facilities and their insurers often argue that a condition “met the standard” and therefore cannot be the basis for a claim. Rusu confirms that compliance is only one piece of the picture. A facility that invites residents and families onto its property owes them reasonable care to protect against unreasonable risks, and that duty can require more than the minimum. “Our door met code” is where the analysis starts, not where it ends.
Balancing Resident Safety Is the Facility’s Job, Not an Excuse
The facility raised a concern familiar to anyone who works in senior care: if the doors stayed open longer, residents with dementia might wander out, a risk known as elopement. That tension is real. But it does not excuse ignoring a striking hazard. Weighing one resident-safety risk against another, and choosing reasonable safeguards such as sensors that protect against both, is exactly the kind of care a facility is required to exercise. A facility cannot point to one danger it was managing as a reason to overlook another that injured a resident.
“No One Has Ever Been Hurt Before” Is Not a Defense
The facility also noted that no resident had ever been injured by one of its doors. The Court rejected that argument. Under long-standing Michigan law, the absence of past accidents does not prove the absence of negligence. A facility cannot wait for the first broken hip to take a hazard seriously.
The Court also stressed that a facility’s duty to inspect is active. This facility checked its doors each morning, but only to confirm they locked and released. No one ever checked how long the doors took to close or whether that created a danger for slow-moving residents. A reasonable inspection means looking for hazards, not just confirming that equipment technically works.
Why This Decision Matters for Families of Residents
Falls are the leading cause of injury and injury-related death among older adults, and a fall that would leave a younger person bruised can leave an elderly resident with a fractured hip, a head injury, or worse. Rusu strengthens the hand of injured residents and their families in several ways:
Safety is measured for the vulnerable residents who live there. A facility that serves the elderly and injured is held to a standard that reflects who its residents actually are.
Code compliance is not a complete shield. A facility cannot escape responsibility simply by saying a condition met a minimum standard.
A clean safety record does not immunize a facility. The fact that no one was hurt before does not make a condition safe.
The duty to inspect is active, not passive. Facilities must look for hazards, not just confirm that equipment works.
A dissenting judge would have returned the case on a narrower procedural point, but the decision allows the injured resident’s claim to move forward.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a nursing home or rehab facility if my loved one was injured there?
Often, yes. A care facility owes its residents and visitors reasonable care to protect them from unreasonable risks. If a hazard on the property caused the injury, your family may have a claim.
The facility says its equipment “met code.” Does that end the case?
No. As Rusu confirms, meeting a minimum standard does not automatically satisfy a facility’s duty of care. A jury can still consider whether the facility should have done more for its residents.
My loved one was the first person hurt by this hazard. Does that matter?
It carries little weight. Michigan law holds that the absence of prior accidents does not prove the absence of negligence.
Is this the same as a nursing home negligence case?
The reasoning applies across the senior care spectrum, including rehabilitation centers, assisted living, and nursing homes. The specific claims available depend on the type of facility, the care promised, and the facts of the injury.
How long do we have to act in Michigan?
Michigan sets strict filing deadlines that vary by the type of claim and facility. Evidence such as surveillance video and maintenance records can disappear quickly, so it is important to speak with an attorney promptly.
Talk to a Michigan Nursing Home and Care Facility Injury Attorney
If your elderly or recovering loved one was hurt by an unsafe condition at a nursing home, rehabilitation center, or senior living facility, your family may have a stronger claim than you realize. Our attorneys have spent decades holding care facilities accountable for serious injuries to Michigan’s most vulnerable residents.
Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation. There is no fee unless we recover for your family.
Source: You can read the full Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in Rusu v. Trilogy Healthcare here: Read the full opinion
This post is for general information and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. To discuss your specific situation, contact a licensed Michigan attorney.