Podcast Episode: UAMS Defendants Demanded More Specificity – Nurse Susan Norsworthy

Pip: When a hospital bills you over a hundred thousand dollars for care you never consented to, the least they could do is spell your name right on the invoice. LauraLynnHammett has been doing something harder — building the legal record.

Mara: This episode follows the opposition filings in the UAMS case, specifically the response to Charge Nurse Susan Norsworthy's motion to dismiss. We're covering confinement without consent, the battery and false imprisonment claims, and the immunity arguments. Let's start with what Norsworthy actually did and what the plaintiffs say must now be answered in court.

Norsworthy, the ICU, and a Case That Won't Be Dismissed

Pip: The core question here is whether a charge nurse can participate in holding a patient for two weeks without consent or a court order, administer sedating drugs over his objection, and then walk away from the lawsuit by arguing the complaint wasn't specific enough.

Mara: The filings lay out the timeline precisely. On January 24, 2024, Norsworthy personally administered Dexmedetomidine — a heavy sedative sold as Precedex — to Sean at around 11:44 a.m., without his consent and without consent from his mother Laura. That same afternoon, Laura video recorded a conversation with Norsworthy, and the complaint quotes it directly: "Zaleski said to Hammett again, 'we don't give benzos to TBIs.'"

Pip: So she administered a sedating drug and then told the patient's mother no sedating drugs were being given. That is the definition of the problem.

Mara: And the filings document that Norsworthy did not record the approximately nineteen-minute conversation, nor the one from the day before. On January 21st, she had also chased Sean down a hallway and stairwell with another staff member, and failed to request preservation of the surveillance video afterward.

Mara: The complaint covers Sean's confinement from January 13 through January 27, 2024, during which over seventy-two UAMS clinicians are alleged to have worked in concert to hold him without legal authority, resulting in a bill exceeding $115,000.

Pip: Norsworthy's own motion argued that Sean's communication disabilities meant he wasn't really representing himself. The filings turn that around hard.

Mara: Right. The response notes that Norsworthy had justified Sean's continued confinement by saying he needed to be "with it 100% of the time so he can leave," and then in the motion to dismiss argued those same disabilities don't give rise to compensable damages. The filing calls that position directly inconsistent.

Pip: You used his disability to keep him. You can't then say the disability doesn't count when he wants redress for it.

Mara: On immunity, Norsworthy claimed statutory protection under Arkansas law for non-malicious acts within the scope of employment. The response points out that under Arkansas law, the party asserting immunity bears the burden of proving it — including proving no liability coverage exists. The filing cites City of Little Rock v. Dayong Yang on that point. Norsworthy attempted to shift that burden to the plaintiffs, who say they simply have no way to know about her insurance until discovery.

Mara: The outrage claim is also detailed. The filings allege Norsworthy knew or should have known that Laura would suffer severe emotional distress from witnessing Sean held without consent, and that Norsworthy committed fraud by misrepresenting Sean's condition — including repeating a claim that he had fallen thirty-five feet when the actual fall was approximately ten feet.

Pip: The plaintiffs are willing to amend the complaint to add seventy-one defendant-specific subsections if that's what specificity requires. That's not a bluff — that's a filing strategy.

Mara: The request is clear: deny Norsworthy's motion to dismiss, or grant leave to amend. The filings argue amendment is not futile, and that the existing complaint already states sufficient facts to proceed on claims of false imprisonment, battery, negligence, and outrage against Norsworthy individually.

Pip: What stays with me is the video. Laura recorded it despite being threatened with removal from the premises, and that recording is now exhibit evidence.

Mara: The next filings will address the other defendants. Each one, the plaintiffs say, will get their own subsection — and the same level of detail.