Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 25PSCV01427, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25PSCV01427 Hearing Date: May 28, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative
Ruling
PLAINTIFFS’
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING INLAND VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC DBA INLAND VALLEY
CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE MEDICAL RECORDS AND REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS is MOOT as documents have been produced; the request
for sanctions is denied.
Background
This is an elder abuse case arising from
the plaintiff’s development of pressure ulcers on his heels while receiving
care for advanced dementia at Inland Valley. The plaintiff was admitted in 2020
and the ulcers developed in November 2024; shortly thereafter in January 2025,
the plaintiff died, and the cause of death being listed as osteomyelitis of the
heels/a bone infection.
On April 21, 2025, Plaintiffs RICHARD
MATHEWS, by and through his successor-in-interest PRUDY MATHEWS; PRUDY MATHEWS,
individually; TERESA BAYNES, individually; and STEVE MATHEWS filed suit against
Defendant INLAND VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC dba INLAND VALLEY CARE AND REHABILITATION
CENTER for the following causes of action (COAs):
1. Statutory
Elder Abuse/Neglect
2. Negligence—Survival
Action
3. Wrongful
Death
4. Violation
of Patient’s Bill of Rights/Health & Safety Code section 1430
On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion.
On May 15, 2025, Defendant filed an
opposition.
On May 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a
‘PETITION OF PRUDY MATHEWS TO MAINTAIN ELDER ABUSE/NEGLECT ACTION IN THE NAME
OF RICHARD MATHEWS, DECEASED.’ That same day, Plaintiffs filed a reply to the
instant OSC.
Discussion
The court’s ruling will be brief as the
Reply acknowledges the issue is moot.
Plaintiff Prudy, the deceased’s spouse,
requested the medical records of her deceased husband in order to evaluate the
treatment Mr. Mathews received at the facility. Despite submitting a formal
written request for records, “Defendant has failed to produce Mr.
Mathews’ medical records.” (Motion p. 2:9-10, emphasis added.) In reply, it
appears that the records have been provided as Plaintiff argues that
“providing documents after a party has already filed a motion does not preclude
sanctions.” (Reply p. 3:8-10; see also Opp. 3:5-8 [“On May 12, McKinley’s
office produced the requested medical records to Plaintiff’s
attorneys-of-record. (McKinley Dec. para. 7 and Exhibit B thereto.) Instead of
taking the instant hearing off-calendar, Plaintiffs apparently still intend to
proceed in spite of having received the records at issue.”].) Pursuant to
California Evidence Code section 1158(d), a medical provider’s failure to make
the records available within five days of receiving the written request may
subject the provider to liability for all reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred in enforcing the request. When a medical provider
fails to comply with California Evidence Code §1158, the requesting party may
apply to the court for an order to show cause regarding why the records have
not been produced, and the court must impose monetary sanctions pursuant to this
section unless it finds the medical provider acted with substantial
justification
Here, however, the court declines to
impose sanctions. First, Plaintiff’s contention that not awarding sanctions in
these circumstances will “embolden nursing homes to continue to ignore records
requests” is unfounded. (Reply p. 3.) Second, the delay in production seemed to
be a result of miscommunication or lack thereof as Defendant avers it
called the firm and left them a message to send a copy service, but Defendant
received no further contact from Plaintiff.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot
and monetary sanctions are denied.