Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21STCV35830, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV35830 Hearing Date: August 31, 2023 Dept: SEC
PRUITT v. BEL
TOOREN VILLA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
CASE NO.: 21STCV35830
HEARING: 08/31/23
#3
I.
Defendant LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA,
INC.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Compliant is OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 20 days.
II.
Defendant LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.’s
Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DENIED.
Plaintiffs to Give Notice.
On July 27, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s request to file a
Supplemental Opposition, and continued the subject matters to allow
Defendant/Moving Party the opportunity to file a Supplemental Reply.
Consequently, the Court has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Reply
filed on August 23, 2023.
This wrongful death/elder abuse action was filed by
Plaintiffs EDWANDA PRUITT, individually and as heir and successor in interest
to ETHEL JOHNSON, deceased; and DARYL PRUITT, individually and as heir and
successor in interest to ETHEL JOHNSON, deceased (collectively “Plaintiffs”).
Plaintiffs allege the following facts: “Decedent, who was
over 80 years old, was placed into the custodial care and custody of DEFENDANTS
at the Facility and was a resident there. Decedent was admitted to the Facility
for treatment and care stemming from surgery, wound care, care for dementia
symptoms, ambulation assistance, lack of mobility, physical therapy, and for
other limiting conditions. [¶] During Decedent’s residence at the Facility,
DEFENDANTS knew that Decedent was in a compromised physical state. Decedent
could not really move or tend to Decedent’s own care or needs.” (Complaint
¶¶32-33.) “[D]ue to the conduct of DEFENDANTS, Decedent died on or about April
30, 2020.” (Complaint ¶37.)
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts the following causes of
action: (1) Wrongful Death (Elder Abuse); (2) Violations of Elder Abuse Act;
(3) Violations of Health & Safety Code §1430(b); and (4) Wrongful Death
(Negligence).
Defendant LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”)
specially and generally demurs to each cause of action.
Uncertainty
Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs’ claims are fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit
because “[a] special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the
failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the
uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira
(1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are
disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the
defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably
determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are
directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even
where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be
clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear
from Defendant’s other arguments that they understand what the Complaint at
least attempts to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The Demurrer is not
sustained on the basis of uncertainty.
First Cause of Action – Wrongful Death/Elder Abuse
Standing
Cting Quiroz v.
Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265, Defendant demurs to
this cause of action on the basis that Plaintiffs have no standing to sue for
elder abuse: “[U]nder the Elder Abuse Act, where neglect or abuse of an elder
or dependent adult is reckless or done with oppression, fraud, or malice such
that the statutory prerequisites are satisfied, damages for the victim’s
predeath pain, suffering, or disfigurement are recoverable in a survivor
action pursued by the victim’s personal representative or successor in
interest, notwithstanding the usual prohibition on such recover under Code of
Civil Procedure section 377.34 (Welf. & Inst. Code §15657.) This statutory
rule of law does not affect or expand the type of damages recoverable by a
decedent’s heir in a wrongful death action in which that plaintiff seeks
compensation for his or her own injuries, which are separate and
distinct from the decedent’s predeath injuries for which compensation is sought
in a survivor action.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140
Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265.) Standing is a
threshold issue.
In their
Supplemental Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Intrieri v. Sup. Court
(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 82-83 stands for the proposition that heirs can sue
for elder abuse under a theory of wrongful death. “[I]n a wrongful death action
involving abuse or neglect of an elderly or dependent adult, damages for pain
and suffering may be awarded…. [¶] There is, therefore, a considerable
incentive for bringing a personal injury or wrongful death action in terms
which qualify it under the Elder Abuse Act.” (Id. at 82-83.)
In its Supplemental
Reply, Defendant argues that Intrieri was abrogated by Quiroz. This argument finds no support in Quiroz. Quiroz held that a plaintiff cannot
obtain heightened remedies under the elder abuse act where Plaintiff only
alleges her own injuries. Here, unlike Quiroz, Plaintiffs’ wrongful
death/elder abuse cause of action not only alleges Plaintiffs were injured, it
also alleges the decedent was injured. Plaintiffs bring their wrongful
death/elder abuse cause of action in their personal capacity and as successors
in interest. Under these facts, Quiroz does not apply.
The demurrer to the
first cause of action is OVERRULED.
Second Cause of Action –
Elder Abuse
A cause of action
under the Elder Abuse Act must be alleged with particularity. (See Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior
Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.)
Acts that constitute mere professional negligence do not constitute
elder abuse. “In order to obtain the
remedies available in section 15657, a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of something more than negligence;
he or she must show reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. The
latter three categories involve "intentional," "willful,"
or "conscious" wrongdoing of a "despicable" or
"injurious" nature.” (Delaney
v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.)
“To recover the enhanced remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act
from a health care provider, a plaintiff must prove more than simple or even
gross negligence in the provider's care or custody of the elder.” (See Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise
Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th
396, 405.) “‘[T]he legislature intended
the Elder Abuse Act to sanction only egregious acts of misconduct distinct from
professional negligence….” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004)
32 Cal.4th 771, 784.) In summary, to plead a cause of action for elder abuse
under the Act based on neglect, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that
the defendant: “(1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder
or dependent adult,” “(2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent
adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs”; and “(3) denied or
withheld goods or services necessary to meet the elder or dependent adult’s basic
needs, either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain…or with
conscious disregard for the high probability of such injury….” (Carter v.
Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 405-407.)
A plaintiff must also allege facts demonstrating that the neglect caused the
elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain, or mental suffering
such that the causal link between the neglect and injury is specifically
alleged. (Id at 407.) Section 15610.63(a)(1) defines neglect in relevant
part as follows: “The negligent failure of any person having the care or
custody of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a
reasonable person in a like position would exercise.” Subsection (b) provides
specific examples of neglect, and states in relevant part: “Neglect includes…
(3) [f]failure to protect from health and safety hazards.” To state an elder
abuse claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that an officer, director,
or managing agent of defendant was involved in the abuse, authorized the abuse,
ratified the abuse or hired the person who did the abuse with advance knowledge
of the persons unfitness and hired him with a conscious disregard of the rights
and safety of others. (Welf. & Inst. Code §15657(c); Cal. Civ. Code §3294.)
“[T]he Act does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had
a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing
responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient.” (Winn
v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152.)
Here, the
Complaint adequately alleges the existence of a caretaking/custodial
relationship. (Complaint ¶32.)
The Complaint also
adequately alleges that the Defendant wrongfully and knowingly withheld care
from the Decedent for purposes of surviving demurrer. (See e.g., Complaint ¶66.)
On demurrer, the
Court is bound to accept Plaintiff’s allegations and construe the allegations
‘liberally in favor of the pleader.’ (Ferrick v. Santa Clara University
(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1341.) The arguments raised by Defendant raise
factual determinations improperly resolved at this stage in the litigation.
The demurrer to
the second cause of action is OVERRULED.
Third Cause of
Action – Violation of Health & Safety Code §1430(b)
“A current or
former resident or patient of a skilled nursing facility…. or intermediate care
facility…may bring a civil action against the licensee of a facility who
violates any rights of the resident or patient as set forth int eh Patients
Bill of Rights…or any other right provided for by federal or state law or
regulation.” (Cal. Health and Safety Code §1430(b).)
Defendants’
demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiff adequately
alleges a claim for a Violation of Health and Safety Code §1430(b). (See
Complaint ¶85.)
Fourth Cause of
Action – Wrongful Death (Negligence)
“The elements of a cause of action for wrongful death are a tort, such
as negligence, and resulting death. [Citation.]” (Lopez v. City of Los
Angeles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 675, 685.)
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an underlying claim for elder
abuse, and that Decedent’s death was caused by Defendant’s elder abuse and
neglect. For pleading purposes, this is sufficient. The demurrer to this cause
of action is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike
A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or
improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or
part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a
court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)