Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22STCV14024 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV14024, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14024 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: C

ACEVEDO v. PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL - DOWNEY

CASE NO.: 22STCV14024

HEARING: 05/04/23

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – DOWNEY’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

II. Defendant PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – DOWNEY’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Opposing Party to Give Notice.

This dependent abuse/neglect action was filed by Plaintiff ADALBERTO ACEVEDO, JR. (“Plaintiff”) on April 27, 2022. On November 10, 2022, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed. Plaintiff’s FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Dependent Adult Abuse; and (2) Professional Negligence.

Defendant PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – DOWNEY (“Defendant”) generally demurs to the first cause of action.

First Cause of Action – Dependent Abuse and Neglect

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.)

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff adequately alleges the existence of a caretaking/custodial relationship. (FAC ¶¶8-9.)

The Complaint also adequately alleges that the Defendant withheld care for purposes of surviving demurrer. (See e.g., FAC ¶¶12-19.) Specifically, Plaintiff adequately alleges the following facts: “Despite knowing that plaintiff… was totally dependent on defendants for his basic needs, [Defendant]… failed to provide plaintiff… with basic and necessary care.” (FAC ¶12.) “On or about December 29, 2020, a deep tissue pressure injury to [Plaintiff’s] back and coccyx was first noted by defendants’ nursing staff…. [¶] On or about January 13, 2021, the pressure injury to plaintiff’s coccyx extended to the right and left buttock and was unstageable…. [¶] On or about January 18, 2021, the pressure injury to the coccyx/buttocks remained unstageable and had extended to plaintiff’s back. [¶] On or about January 28, 2021, a pressure injury to [Plaintiff’s] chest-clavicle area was documented as state III. [¶] The decubitus ulcer[s] to plaintiff’s sacral/coccyx area further deteriorated, and he developed additional decubitus ulcers du e to [Defendant’s] failure to provide hygiene, failure to turn/reposition plaintiff every two hours, and failure to provide interventions to prevent skin breakdown.” (FAC ¶¶12-18.)

Plaintiff adequately alleges that the Defendant wrongfully and knowingly withheld care to Plaintiff. (See e.g., FAC ¶¶21-22.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that “preceding and throughout plaintiff’s admission to defendant’s hospital, the continual and knowing disregard by the defendant’s corporate management… of the duty of and need for adequate staffing to provide and ensure proper patient care… was intentional and deliberate and done in order to financially benefit defendant throughout minimizing staffing cost while maximizing patient income….” (FAC ¶28.) “The hospital was insufficiently staffed to implement its care plans and provide its patients with necessary care and treatment. These managing agents of defendant failed to provide appropriate and necessary staffing at their hospital, which directly resulted in the custodial neglect that proximately caused [Plaintiff’s] injuries” (FAC ¶31.)

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.

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.)

The motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED. Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendants engaged in malicious and/or despicable conduct under the cause of action for dependent/adult abuse.