Skip to main content

Nursing home tells 911 CPR is being performed on a patient, but it wasn’t, raising questions about man’s death

Click here for updates on this story

    SPRINGFIELD, Tennessee (WTVF) — Last week we told you about the man in Robertson County who wound up on the side of a busy road, all day in his wheelchair, with all of his belongings. He’d been a patient at the Waters of Springfield nursing home. After he was sent to the hospital for tests, the nursing home refused to take him back, apparently violating state rules.

And at that same nursing home last week, emergency crews were called after another resident got out a back door in his wheelchair and rolled into a large ditch in front of the facility. The elderly man was taken to the hospital with injuries.

And before all of that, a patient’s sudden death at the Waters earlier this year raises questions as well. That man’s daughter said she doesn’t understand why the Waters of Springfield is still even open.

Olivia Kritsch said, “I cannot describe the way I felt when I first heard the 911 call.”

The 911 dispatcher can be heard asking, “Is he awake and breathing?’

The caller replies, “No.”

“He’s not breathing?” the dispatcher asks again, confirming the patient’s status.

Again, the caller says, “No.”

That 911 call was made early February 5th of this year.

And the man who was neither awake nor breathing was Jay Kritsch. He had been at the Waters of Springfield nursing home for only a couple of weeks, receiving physical therapy. His daughter said he was doing so well, he was about to be released and sent home. But then Kritsch died after falling in his bathroom at the facility.

Olivia Kritsch said from the beginning she felt like what the nursing home was telling her just didn’t add up.

So she began requesting records including that 911 call, made by a nurse at the facility.

“It’s unbelievable. I still feel like I’m in shock,” Kritsch explained.

In that call, the nurse states, “We got somebody in there doing compressions.”

You can hear the dispatcher ask if CPR was being performed.

“So you have CPR in progress?”

“Yes.”

The nurse replies yes, even though she later admits she is nowhere near Kritsch and his bathroom.

“Is there any way you can hang up with me, go to the room where they’re doing CPR, and then call back in?”

“Okay.”

And after the dispatcher tells the nurse to call back when she is actually in the room with Kritsch, we learn… that Kritsch had passed away.

The nurse says simply, “He’s gone.”

The dispatcher then asks, “I’m sorry?” trying to understand the last statement.

The nurse replies, “He’s definitely gone.”

The dispatcher continues, “Is he cold to the touch?”

The nurse then answers, “He is cold to the touch. He’s blue in the face.”

Medical records show Kritsch wanted all lifesaving measures including CPR.

But the state’s investigation into his death found the Waters of Springfield never performed CPR, even though the nurse claimed they had when she called 911.

The nurse can be heard telling the dispatcher at one point, “They stopped CPR once they got him off the toilet. He’s gone.”

In fact the two nursing assistants who we hear supposedly stopped CPR were not certified to do it.

Olivia Kritsch explained, “So the two people left in the room with Dad were not certified and the one that left the room was certified.”

“What do you think about that?” we asked.

“I don’t understand how that happens,” Kritsch said.

And there is more.

According to the state investigation, Kritsch’s roommate pressed his call button between 5:30 and 5:45 that morning after Kritsch went to the bathroom and didn’t come back out.

Facility video footage shows no one responded though until 6:07. State investigators reported that several employees then can be seen going in and out of the room for the next ten minutes.

But no one called 911 until 6:17.

“I just can’t let that go. You [the Waters of Springfield] did not provide the care that you were obligated to provide my father and it’s not okay,” Olivia Kritsch stated.

Regulators fined the Waters of Springfield $26,000 and declared immediate jeopardy, the most severe level of concern following an incident at a nursing home. It meant the facility could not admit any new patients. But not long after, it was back to business as usual.

The administrator of the Waters declined our request for an interview and refused to answer any questions, but said in a statement, “The safety, dignity, and well-being of our residents remain our priority… We remain focused on providing a safe, respectful, and supportive environment for all residents and continuing our day-to-day commitment to quality care.”

“And now you’re committed to quality care? It feels like a slap in the face,” Kritsch responded.

She continued, “There were multiple failures in my dad’s care and I hope that other families can avoid experiencing what we’ve experienced.”

The nursing home told us in its statement, “Individuals associated with the 911 call are no longer employed by the facility.” The woman who was director of nursing at the time, over all of those involved in this incident however is still at the Waters, but I’m told she is now in a different position. And, I’ve just learned that state inspectors showed up again at the Waters Monday. We will be looking for their report and let you know what, if anything, they found.

Please note: This story was provided to CNN Wire by an affiliate and does not contain original CNN reporting. This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

Supreme Court backs Trump’s order to curb mail ballots

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday said that President Donald Trump could begin carrying out parts of an executive order intended to restrict mail voting, but additional legal challenges could hinder implementation of his plan before the November midterm election.The ruling injects new uncertainty about the voting rules for the midterms by keeping alive the possibility that Trump will impose policies outlined in the March order that gave the US Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented roles in the running of elections.The high court’s ruling, handed down in an unsigned order over the dissent of the court’s three liberals, means that the Trump administration may move forward with a proposal for DHS to compile state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the Democratic-led states that had challenged the plan in court.Another part of Trump’s executive order instructs the Postal Service to impose new mandates on states that want to send ballots through the mail, requiring that they submit their own lists of eligible voters to the agency and include information on ballot envelopes to allow those ballots to be tracked. The justices gave USPS the green light to implement that aspect of Trump’s plan, but a lower court blocked that effort nationwide in a separate case. That means more court action will likely be needed before the USPS can move forward.The Supreme Court’s decision did not address the legality of Trump’s order, only the timing of the challenge to it. Trump for years has made baseless claims about widespread voter fraud while specifically attempting to undermine confidence in mail voting.“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the court wrote. “On that score, time will tell. But the order itself does not harm the states, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the govern­ment from trying to implement it. And for the reasons dis­cussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the government if it remains in place while the appellate pro­cess runs its course.”And it represents a loss for the Democratic states, who warned they will need to immediately begin diverting time and resources away from preparing for this year’s elections, which are fewer than three months away.Election cases have become particularly contentious this year at the Supreme Court, drawing sharp writing from members of both the conservative and liberal wings. In the highest profile case, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act in a significant ruling in late April dealing with Louisiana’s congressional districts.“The ruling is a win for Trump for the moment, but it doesn’t fully clear the way for his effort to limit mail-in ballots to go into effect. There’s already a separate injunction against the executive order that’s not directly affected by today’s ruling, and as soon as tomorrow, a Massachusetts district court may block the underlying USPS rule at issue—which is the real thing to watch heading into November.”This story is breaking and will be updated.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story