Maggie KNOWLES, etc., Petitioner, v. BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-FLORIDA, INC., etc., Respondent, 898 So. 2d 1

PER CURIAM. We have for review Beverly Enterprises—Florida, Inc. v. Knowles, 766 So.2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (en banc). The district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: MAY A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BRING A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER

SECTION 400.023(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED RESIDENT OF A NURSING HOME FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE RESIDENT’S STATUTORY RIGHTS PROVIDED BY

SECTION 400.022, FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), WHERE THE INFRINGEMENT HAS NOT CAUSED THE RESIDENT’S DEATH? Beverly Enterprises—Florida, Inc. v. Knowles, 763 So.2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. STATEMENT OF THE CASE & FACTS The personal representative of the estate of Gladstone Knowles, deceased, filed an action against Beverly Enterprises seeking damages under the provisions of

section 400.023(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: Any resident whose rights as specified in this part are deprived or infringed upon shall have a cause of action against any licensee responsible for the violation.

The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of a resident with the consent of the resident or his or her guardian, or by the personal representative of the estate of the deceased resident ■when the cause of death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights. (Emphasis supplied.) The facts that gave rise to the personal representative’s action are set out in the Fourth District’s opinion: Gladstone Knowles, an elderly gentleman, was a resident of Washington Man- or Nursing Home and Rehabilitation C.enter for approximately 67 days while he convalesced from hip-replacement surgery.

While at Washington Manor, Knowles developed severe bedsores and other serious ailments allegedly because of neglectful and improper treatment and care provided by Washington Man- or. Knowles was transferred to a medical hospital where he later died. Maggie Knowles, the personal representative for Gladstone Knowles, sued Washington Manor for violation of the Patient’s Bill of Rights under sections 400.022 and 400.023, Florida Statutes (1997). Washington Manor moved for

summary judgment because the complaint did not allege that any violation of the statute caused Gladstone’s death. Appellee conceded that Gladstone’s death did not result from any of the alleged violations of the Patient’s Bill of Rights. Interpreting

section 400.023(1) to preclude actions by a personal representative when the patient’s death is not caused by a deprivation of rights under the statute, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for

summary judgment. After the trial court disposed of the statutory negligence claims, the case went to trial on a common law negligence theory. The jury returned a verdict for Washington Manor. Beverly Enterprises—Florida, Inc. v. Knowles, 766 So.2d 335, 335-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (en banc). However, after the return of the jury verdict, the trial court concluded that it had erred in granting a

summary judgment on the statutory claim and ordered a new trial. The new trial order relied upon a newly rendered decision from the Fourth District. Prior to its en banc decision in Knowles, the Fourth District had held in Greenfield v. Manor Care, Inc., 705 So.2d 926, 933-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), that

section 400.023(1) permitted a personal representative to bring a cause of action for damages arising out of violations of

section 400.022 regardless of whether the violations caused the death of the resident. See Knowles, 766 So.2d at 336. When the Fourth District’s decision in Greenfield was called to its attention, the trial court granted petitioner’s motion for a new trial. Upon subsequent review, however, the Fourth District receded from its earlier decision in Greenfield and reversed the trial court’s order for a new trial. The district court, sitting en banc, held that “the language of

section 400.023 unambiguously provides that a personal representative of a deceased, nursing home resident may bring a cause of action against the nursing home for violation of the Patient’s Bill of Rights only when the deprivation or infringement of the resident’s rights caused the patient’s death.” Knowles, 766 So.2d- at 336. Accordingly, the Fourth District held that the trial court was correct in initially dismissing the statutory negligence claims. See id.

In Greenfield, the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident who died from causes- unrelated to the alleged statutory violations filed suit against the nursing home for its failure to adequately advise residents of the costs of services. See Greenfield, 705 So.2d at 933. The trial court dismissed the action because the personal representative had failed to demonstrate that the decedent died as a result of the statutory violations. Id. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed.

It reasoned: The trial court dismissed count VII on the basis that appellant did not allege that her husband’s death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of his rights under

Chapter 400. We do not agree with that

interpretation of the statute. On one level,

section 400.023 lends itself to the

interpretation espoused by the trial court, that is, that suits by personal representatives on.behalf of deceased residents are allowed only when the nursing home’s alleged negligence caused the resident’s death. On the other hand, we do not think that such an

interpretation was intended by the Legislature in light of

section 46.021, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that “no cause of action dies with the person.” To construe

section 400.023 as foreclosing all causes of actions for nursing home negligence which does not cause the resident’s death is to nullify

section 46.021. See generally Beverly Enterprises—Florida, Inc. v. Estate of Maggiacomo, 651 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA), quashed on other grounds, 661 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1995) (personal representative sued on behalf of deceased resident under

section 400.023 for deprivation of nursing home rights for theft of diamond ring which was allegedly forced from finger of resident causing bruises; resident died of unrelated causes); Arthur v. Unicare Facilities, Inc., 602 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 4 (Fla.1992) (when death results from complained-of injuries, The Wrongful Death Act applies; when death results from an independent cause, claim is preserved by

section 46.021, the survival of actions statute). As such, we hold that

section 400.023, Florida Statutes (1993), must be read in pari materia with

section 46.021, Florida Statutes (1993) in order to reach a logical result. See generally Inciarrano v. State, 447 So.2d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), quashed on other grounds, 473 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) (the Legislature is presumed to know the state of the law in passing statutes and consequently the legislation is to be construed on the premise that the particular statute in question is to be applied relative to other statutes affecting the same subject matter). We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s statutory cause of action, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Greenfield, 705 So.2d at 933-34. In the en banc Knowles opinion, the district court relied upon and adopted the reasoning of Judge Warner’s partial dissent in Greenfield, which provided: The rights protected under

section 400.022 are rights that are largely personal to the resident of the facility, such as the right to religious liberty, see § 400.022(l)(a), the right to organize and participate in groups in the facility, see § 400.022(l)(e), and the right to manage one’s personal affairs, see § 400.022(l)(

h) to name a few. The resident also has the right to adequate medical care and proper treatment, see § 400.022(1)(

Z) and under

section 400.023(1), if the violation of these rights results in a death then, the personal representative of the estate of the deceased resident has a cause of action. However, as to the other personal rights, I can conceive of valid policy reasons why the legislature would not want such actions to survive, as post-death vindication would not bring any personal satisfaction to the resident.

Considering the fact that attorney’s fees are available for successful suits proving infringements of these statutory rights, it may have been part of the legislative bargain in passing the resident’s bill of rights to limit actions to the lifetime of the patient, other than those alleging that the violation of the rights resulted in the death of the resident. Moreover,

section 400.023(1) was enacted long after

section 46.021 and I do not see how the two can be harmonized .... As a general rule of statutory construction, a special statute controls over a general statute. See McKendry v. State, 641 So.2d 45 (Fla.1994). Knowles, 766 So.2d at 336-37 (quoting Greenfield, 705 So.2d at 934 (Warner, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). In a separate opinion, the Fourth District certified the above-mentioned question as one of great public importance. See Knowles, 763 So.2d at 1285. ANALYSIS It is well settled that legislative intent is the polestar that guides a court’s statutory construction analysis. See State v.

Rife, 789 So.2d 288, 292 (Fla.2001); McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998). In determining that intent, we have explained that “we look first to the statute’s plain meaning.” Moonlit Waters Apartments, Inc. v. Cauley, 666 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla.1996). Normally, “[w]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambig-. uous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory

interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc., v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). Accordingly, we begin our analysis by first determining thé plain meaning of the • pertinent language in

section 400.023(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: Any resident whose rights as specified in this part are deprived or infringed upon shall have a cause of action against any licensee responsible for the violation. The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of a resident with the consent of the resident or his or her guardian, or by the personal representative of the estate of the deceased resident when the cause of death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights. (Emphasis added.) The district court, and the trial court in its initial ruling, held that

section 400.023(1) unambiguously states that a cause of action may be filed by the personal representative of a deceased resident only when the death resulted from a violation of the rights under

chapter 400. Knowles, 766 So.2d at 337. It provides that a personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident may bring a cause of action against a nursing home only when the death of the-resident resulted from the-deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights. ■ Hence,

section 400.023(1), when read by itself, clearly limits the circumstances upon which a personal representative may sue for violation of the decedent’s rights. On its face, the phrase “when the cause of death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights” puts a limitation on the person who is entitled to sue, in other words, the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident. The phrase also indicates that the suit may be brought when the death of the deceased resident is caused by the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights.

Because the Legislature used the term “resulted from,” it limited actions by the estate of a deceased resident to those based on violations which caused the decedent’s death. Thus, the court, below reasonably concluded that the plain meaning of the language used in the statute indicates that only personal representatives of the estate of a deceased resident whose death resulted from the deprivation or infringement of the decedent’s rights may bring an action for damages under the statutory rights scheme. Legislative Intent Notwithstanding the above, petitioner contends that the district court’s

interpretation of

section 400.023 is contrary to the Legislature’s intent. She asserts that even when language of a particular statutory provision appears to be clear, “[i]t is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that legislative intent is the polestar by which the court must be guided, and this intent must be given effect even though it may contradict the strict letter of the statute.” State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla.1981) (emphasis added). This Court has also noted that “[i]t is axiomatic that all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.” Forsythe v.

Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992). “Where possible, courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another.” Id.

Hence, the petitioner asserts that where the language of a particular statutory provision is clear, but the clear meaning does not comport with the Legislature’s intent or it conflicts with other provisions of the statute, the Court should not blindly adopt the plain meaning of the statute without additionally considering if the Legislature’s intent is supported by such a reading. “The primary guide to statutory

interpretation is to determine the purpose of the legislature.” Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So.2d 833, 836 (Fla.1963); see also Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Fla.1989) (“As the Court often has noted, our obligation is to honor the obvious legislative intent and policy behind an enactment, even where that intent requires an

interpretation that exceeds the literal language of the statute.”); Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc., 444 So.2d 926, 929 (Fla.1983) (“Statutes should be construed in light of the manifest purpose to be achieved by the legislation.”); State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973) (“[T]he purpose of all rules relating to the construction of statutes is to discover the true intention of the law.”). Petitioner claims that her

interpretation of

section 400.023(1) is supported by (1) the remedial nature of

section 400.023(1), which should be construed liberally; (2) the effect of

section 400.023(1) when viewed in light of

section 400.022, Florida Statutes (1997), sections 768.16-768.27, Florida Statutes (1997), and

section 46.021, Florida Statutes (1997); and (3) the legislative purpose and history of

section 400.023(1). Accordingly, she asserts, even if the “plain meaning” of the specific language in

section 400.023(1) appears to prevent petitioner in the instant case from bringing a statutory cause of action, courts should at least question if the plain meaning of

section 400.023(1) is what the Legislature intended. Remedial Statutes Should be Liberally Construed Petitioner contends that

section 400.023(1) is remedial in nature and therefore should be liberally construed. Indeed, we have held that where a statute is remedial in nature, it should be liberally construed to “preserve and promote access to the remedy intended by the Legislature.” Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So.2d 432, 435 (Fla.2000) (holding that

chapter 760, Florida Statutes, relating to employment discrimination, is remedial and requires a liberal construction to preserve and promote access to the remedy intended by Legislature); see also Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So.2d 561, 566 (Fla.2000) (liberally construing Whistle-Blower Act in favor of granting access to remedy provided by Legislature). As mentioned above,

section 400.023(1) provides a remedy to those residents whose rights have been deprived or infringed upon by the nursing home. Under this analysis, petitioner asserts that a liberal

interpretation of the statute would permit suit by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident whose death did not result from a violation of the act but who was injured by said violation. However, it is apparent that such an

interpretation would alter the clear and unambiguous language of

section 400.023(1) by either injecting a different circumstance upon which suit may be brought or by ignoring the language expressly used in the statute. In other words, to give the statute the liberal

interpretation urged by petitioner, this Court wquld have to add words to the statute stating that the cause of death is irrelevant or it would have to ignore the term “when death resulted from.” The law is well settled that courts in this state are “without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications.” Holly, 450 So.2d at 219 (quoting Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)). Thus, while petitioner is correct that

section 400.023(1) should be liberally construed, such construction does not mean that this Court may rewrite the statute or ignore the words chosen by the Legislature so as to expand its terms. See id. Consideration of Related Statutes Petitioner also contends that courts should avoid interpreting a statute in a way that would render related statutes meaningless. She argues that instead of construing the statutory phrase in

section 400.023(1) in isolation, the court below should have considered

section 400.023(1) with other, related statutes in determining legislative intent. Petitioner points specifically to subsection 400.022(l)(h)(4), which states that the nursing home facility must hold, safeguard, manage and account for the resident’s personal funds deposited with the facility and, upon the death of the resident, convey those funds to the decedent’s beneficiary or person responsible for administering the decedent’s estate within thirty days. Petitioner argues that because this right does not become effective until the death of the resident and because the violation of this right would never lead to death, this right would not be actionable under

section 400.023(1) as construed by the court below, thereby rendering it meaningless. We have stated that “[i]t is axiomatic that all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.” Forsythe, 604 So.2d at 455. Furthermore-, where it is possible, courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another. Id. However, we disagree here that the lower court’s construction of

section 400.023(1) would render the right identified in

section 400.022(l)(h)(4) meaningless. First, subsection 400.022(1)(h)(4) does not become effective until the resident dies. At that time, the facility has the obligation to return all deposited funds to the administrator of the resident’s estate or, if none has been appointed, to the resident’s spouse or next of kin. Thus, there is no danger of this right abating upon the resident’s death. Second,

section 400.162, which deals with the property and personal affairs of the residents, requires the facility to return all deposited funds to the administrator of the decedent’s estate. See § 400.162, Fla. Stat. (1997). Specifically,

section 400.162(6) states: In the event of the death of a resident, a licensee shall return all refunds and funds' held in trust to the resident’s personal representative, if one has been appointed at the time the nursing home disburses such funds, and if not, to the resident’s spouse or adult next of kin named in a beneficiary designation form provided by the nursing home to the resident. Thus, a personal representative of the resident’s estate would not need to invoke the provisions of

section 400.023(1) in order to secure the resident’s funds. Rather, the personal representative can ensure the return of all funds under

section 400.162. Accordingly, we disagree that the statutory provisions in

section 400.022 have been rendered meaningless by the lower court’s construction of

section 400.023(1). Wrongful Death Act and Survival Statute Next, petitioner argues that the court below ignored the legislative intent of

section 400.023(1) as evidenced by (1) existing law and (2) the legislative history of the statute. First, petitioner argues that the lower court failed to consider the different purposes of two related statutes. See § 46.021, Fla. Stat. (1997) (“Survival Statute”); §§ 768.16-768.27, Fla. Stat. (1997) (“Wrongful Death Act”). The Survival Statute states: “No cause of action dies with the person. All causes of action survive and may be commenced, prosecuted, and defended in the name of the person prescribed by law.” § 46.021, Fla. Stat. (1997).

The Wrongful Death Act, on the other hand, permits a cause of action “[w]hen the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person.” § 768.19, Fla. Stat. (1997). Under the Wrongful Death Act, however, a personal injury claim abates where personal injuries suffered from the negligent or wrongful act result in death. See Martin v. United Sec. Servs., Inc., 314 So.2d 765, 770 (Fla.1975) (holding that no separate statutory action for personal injuries resulting in death can survive the decedent’s demise).

Damages are limited to the survivor’s loss of support arid services, companionship, and his or her own pain and suffering. The estate may also recover loss of earnings of the deceased and medical and funeral expenses. See § 768.21, Fla. Stat. (1997). Petitioner argues that the court below erroneously applied the canon of statutory construction that the specific statute controls over a general statute, when it should have read

section 400.023(1) in harmony with

section 46.021. It is true that courts must presume that the Legislature passes statutes with the knowledge of prior existing statutes and that “the legislature does not intend to keep contradictory enactments on the books or to effect so important a measure as the repeal of a law without expressing an intention to do so.” Woodgate Dev. Corp. v. Hamilton Inv. Trust, 351 So.2d 14, 16 (Fla.1977). We have also noted that “[wjhere possible, it is the duty of the courts to adopt that construction of a statutory provision which harmonizes and reconciles it with other provisions of the same act.” Id. (emphasis added).

However, as noted by the Third District, “[t]here must be a hopeless inconsistency before rules of construction are applied to defeat the plain language of one of the statutes.” Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Estate of Johnson, 743 So.2d 83, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). On the one hand,

section 400.023, as written by the Legislature and construed by the court below, might appear to extinguish a statutory cause of action for those claimants in petitioner’s position; the district court’s

interpretation of

section 400.023 precludes a personal representative’s ability to bring a survival action based on -the statutory cause of action where death was not the result of a violation of the act. The effect of this

interpretation could be viewed as extinguishing or abating a cause of action the decedent clearly would have had under the statute, had he not died. Such a result appears to conflict with the purpose of

section 46.021, which .clearly provides that all causes of action survive the death of a person. However, because this is a legislatively created cause of action to be brought by personal representatives only under certain circumstances, we conclude the Legislature had the authority both to determine the extent of the statutory right and to prescribe or limit the remedies available for a violation of the right. More importantly,

section 400.023(1) does not “cut off’ a deceased resident’s right to bring a cause of action.

Section 400.023(1) states that “[t]he remedies provided in this

section are in addition to and cumulative with other legal and administrative remedies available to a resident and to the agency.” § 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, in actuality,

section 400.023(1) does not negate or extinguish a cause of action that would otherwise exist as among “other legal and administrative remedies.” Rather, such resident (or estate) can bring a common law negligence action as was done in this case. Furthermore, in addition to common law negligence, the facility may be liable depending on the particular facts, under the theories of common law intentional torts, like battery, or abuse of a vulnerable adult under

section 415.1111, Florida Statutes (1997). Thus,

section 400.023(1) does not necessarily conflict with

section 46.021. Furthermore, we note petitioner was not deprived of or prevented from relying on the violation of Mr. Knowles’

chapter 400 rights, because although petitioner proceeded on a common law negligence theory she was permitted to refer to the rights listed in

section 400.022 to establish her claim. More importantly, the trial court instructed the jury that residents in nursing homes have rights under

section 400.022 and that a violation of those rights constitutes negligence. Thus, while petitioner’s statutory claim under

section 400.023(1) may have been dismissed, the trial court permitted petitioner to proceed in a manner substantially similar to the statutory cause of action. Legislative History Finally, petitioner argues that the district court’s

interpretation of

section 400.023(1) is inconsistent with the legislative purpose and legislative history of the statute. However, the rules of statutory construction are the means by which courts seek to determine legislative intent only when that intent is not plain and obvious enough to be conclusive. See McDonald v. Roland, 65 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1953). In that instance, it is well settled that courts will consider the “history of a statute as an aid in determining the Legislature’s intent.” Id.

However, the Fourth District quite properly ruled that it would not consider the legislative history of the statute because it found that “section 400.023(1) is clear and, thus, leaves no room for resort to a consideration of legislative history to determine its meaning.” Knowles, 766 So.2d at 337. Because we agree that the language used by the Legislature is unambiguous, it is not necessary to examine the legislative history. CONCLUSION Because we too find the language of the statute clear and unambiguous, we agree with the Fourth District’s analysis in this case.

Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and affirm the Fourth District’s decision in this case. It is so ordered. WELLS, ANSTEAD, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. CANTERO, J., concurs with an opinion, in which WELLS, ANSTEAD, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs. PARIENTE, C.J., recused. . We are aware that during the pendency of this proceeding, the 2001 Legislature amended the statutory provisions at issue in this case. See ch.2001-45, 4, Laws of Fla. (amending 400.023(1), Fla. Stat.); 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (2001).

Under the current version of the statute, which went into effect on May 15, 2001, the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident may file a cause of action against the nursing home for violations of the deceased resident's rights "regardless of the cause of death.” 400.023(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Both.parties have filed supplemental authority in effect asking us to interpret whether this new amendment was a clarification of the rights of a personal representative, or if it was a wholesale revision to the law, and if so whether the Legislature intended the revisions to apply retroactively.

The changes in

section 400.023(1) were substantial and the legislative history is silent as to why the particular change in question, i.e., the expansion of a personal representative's right to bring a cause of action "regardless of the cause of death,” was made. Therefore, although we have considered the changes, we find the 2001 revisions to be of no moment with regard to the particular issue in this case. . Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has also cautioned against blindly following statutory language without considering the policy of a particular law: The policy as well as the letter of the law is a guide to decision.

Resort to the policy of a law may be had to ameliorate its seeming harshness or to qualify its apparent absolutes .... The process of

interpretation also misses its high function if a strict reading of a law results in the emasculation or deletion of a provision which a less literal reading would preserve. Cox v. Roth, 348 U.S. 207, 209, 75 S.Ct. 242, 99 L.Ed. 260 (1955) (quoting Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct. 193, 90 L.Ed. 165 (1945)). . The trial court instructed the jury: Florida statute

section 400.022 provides that nursing home residents have the following rights under Florida law and that all licensees of nursing home facilities shall treat their residents in accordance of the following rights: ... [court lists rights]. Violation of this statute is negligence. If you find that a person alleged to have been negligent violated this statute, such person was negligent. You should then determine whether such negligence was the legal cause of the loss, injury or damage complained of. . Petitioner also argues that the court below, in adopting Judge Warner’s dissent from Greenfield, improperly holds that the statutory rights provided by

section 400.023(1) are "largely personal to the resident of the facility” and thus do not survive the resident’s death under

section 46.021. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, neither the court below nor Judge Warner in her dissenting opinion in Greenfield stated that personal rights do not survive the death of the resident. Rather, Judge Warner explained that the rights listed in

section 400.022 are "largely personal to the resident of the facility.” She further explained that she could conceive valid policy reasons why the Legislature would limit the cause of action to violations that caused the resident’s death; vindication for violation of several of the rights listed in

section 400.022 would not bring any personal satisfaction to the resident after death. Thus, this claim appears to be without merit because the court below did not hold that no personal claims survive the death of the resident.