Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV08578, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08578    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: 14

Hernandez,et al v. PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital, et al

Case Background

 

Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to properly care for their decedent.

 

            On November 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for (1) Elder Abuse and (2) Wrongful Death against Defendants PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital (“PIH”) and DOES 1-100.

 

No trial date has yet been set.

 

(1)        Demurrer

           

Defendant PIH now demurs, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(e)-(f), to the entire SAC on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action and is uncertain.

 

Decision

 

The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant PIH is to Answer within 10 days.

 

Facts Alleged

 

            According to the SAC, the decedent began his course of medical care on December 14, 2021, when he was admitted for a coronary procedure. (SAC ¶ 10). He suffered post-operative complications, and developed a stage III pressure ulcer while he was there. (Id.). He was discharged on February 28, 2022. (Id.).

 

            The decedent re-entered the hospital on March 30, 2022, and stayed until April 1, 2022. (SAC ¶ 11). He returned on April 2, 2022 and stayed until April 6, 2022. He returned one final time on April 16, 2022, and stayed there until his death on May 4, 2022. (Id.). He was 76. (SAC ¶ 12).

 

First Cause of Action: Elder Abuse

 

            To prevail on a claim for neglect under the Elder Abuse Act, a plaintiff must plead (and later prove by clear and convincing evidence) that the defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of an elder or dependent adult, (in this case, medical care), (2) knew that the elder or dependent adult could not provide for those basic needs, and (3) denied or withheld goods or services necessary to meet those basic needs, either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain or with conscious disregard of the high probability of injury. Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 369, 406-407. Of course, the plaintiff must also prove that this withholding actually caused an injury. Id. at 407.

 

            “The Elder Abuse Act's heightened remedies do not apply to acts of professional negligence. Hence, the Act does not provide liability for simple or gross negligence by health care providers. Plaintiffs must plead and prove something more than negligence—that is, reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.” Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348-49.

 

First Element: Custodial Relationship

 

            Defendant PIH begins by arguing that Plaintiffs haven’t met the first element of the claim: that PIH was responsible for meeting the decedent’s “basic needs.” According to the California Supreme Court, a “basic need” is something “that an able-bodied and fully competent adult would ordinarily be capable of managing without assistance.” Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 158. In the medical context, this includes the general management and broad control of care (i.e. the selection of which doctors to see and what sort of treatment to seek), as opposed merely to the provision of a specific type of care. Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57(b)(2); Winn, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 158, 165.

 

            Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the required relationship at paragraph 9 of the SAC. They plead that Defendant was responsible for almost every aspect of the decedent’s daily life, for generally monitoring him, and arranging appropriate care. By nature of the various ailments alleged, the decedent would have been dependent upon them for long stretches of time.

 

Lack of Particularity

 

            Next, Defendant PIH argues that Plaintiffs have failed to plead neglect with sufficient particularity. This too is incorrect.

 

Much of the complaint against Defendant PIH hinges on generalized pleadings of negligence by hospital staff, which the complaint then blames on understaffing. Usually, understaffing supports a cause of action only for negligence in undertaking services, not elder abuse. Worsham v. O’Connor Hospital (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 331, 337-338. However, the case may be different where the plaintiff can identify a specific state or federal regulation which has been violated (Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348-49), or where the patient has a specific care plan which is repeatedly ignored (Sababin v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 81, 90).

 

In this case, Plaintiffs have pled that Defendant PIH was in deliberate violation of 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 70217, which governs the ratio of nurses to patients. (SAC ¶ 20). That is sufficient to plead a cause of action for elder abuse under Fenimore, supra.

 

Employer Liability

 

            “In order to obtain the [Elder Abuse] Act's heightened remedies, a plaintiff must allege conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of punitive damages.” Covenant Care Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 789. This includes the requirement of pleading employer involvement in conduct perpetrated by employees. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657(c). Here, Plaintiff has met this standard.

 

Plaintiffs have pled that PIH deliberately ignored staffing ratios imposed by the law. By its very nature, a deliberate policy decision about staffing ratios implies the hand of a managing agent as required by Civil Code § 3294(b). Discovery may prove that no such decision was made, or that it was made by someone other than a managing agent. But that is an issue for another day.

 

Vicarious Liability

 

            For the same reasons, the court need not address the issue of vicarious liability at this time. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled direct liability against Defendant PIH.

 

Second Cause of Action: Wrongful Death

 

            Defendant PIH addresses no independent discussion to this claim. But if the Elder Abuse cause of action survives, this one certainly does.

 

Uncertainty

 

            Finally, Defendant PIH suggests that the complaint is uncertain because it does not state which plaintiffs bring which causes of action. But such a statement is only necessary if different plaintiffs are bringing different claims. It is apparent from the caption that all plaintiffs assert each cause of action. There is no need to repeat this information in the body of the complaint.

 

Conclusion

 

            Because Plaintiffs have properly pled that Defendant PIH deliberately understaffed itself in violation of applicable state regulations, they have properly pled claims for elder abuse and wrongful death. The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant PIH is to Answer within 10 days.

 

(2)        Motion to Strike

 

            Defendant PIH now moves this court for an order striking elder abuse related allegations from the SAC.

 

The motion is DENIED.

 

Discussion

 

            Punitive damages and attorney’s fees are available remedies on an Elder Abuse claim. There is no need to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13 in connection with such claims. Covenant Care, supra, 32 Cal.4th at 776. And while prejudgment interest may not be awarded as of right, it may still be awarded in the discretion of the fact finder. See Civil Code § 3288.