Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV10782, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10782    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 21, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant White Memorial Medical Center dba Adventist Health White Memorial

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Esthela Medrano-Dominguez and Christina Moreno as, Successors-in-Interest of Maria G. Dominguez-Barrios

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AM ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On March 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Esthela Medrano-Dominguez and Christina Moreno as, Successors-in-Interest of Maria G. Dominguez-Barrios sued Defendants White Memorial Medical Center dba Adventist Health White Memorial, et al., asserting causes of action for (1) elder abuse; and (2) medical negligence. Plaintiffs allege their mother, Maria G. Dominguez-Barrios, developed pressure sores while being treated by Defendants.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

A. First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse

To plead elder abuse, the plaintiff must allege “facts establishing that the defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration, hygiene or medical care [citations]; (2) knew of conditions that made the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or her own basic needs [citations]; 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 to befall the elder or dependent adult (if the plaintiff alleges oppression, fraud or malice) or with conscious disregard of the high probability of such injury (if the plaintiff alleges recklessness) [citations].” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 406-07.) “The plaintiff must also allege . . . that the neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain or mental suffering.” (Id. at 407.) “[T]he facts constituting the neglect and establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury ‘must be pleaded with particularity,’ in accordance with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Id. (quoting Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).)  

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for elder abuse on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts. Plaintiffs allege their mother was taken to the Defendant facility for treatment of COVID-19. Mrs. Dominguez-Barrio suffered from dementia and was non-verbal at the time of admission. Plaintiffs allege Defendant assessed Dominguez-Barrio as high risk for pressure sores, requiring she be turned or moved every two hours. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to move Dominguez-Barrio on at least 11 occasions and only elevated her extremities five times in 27 days hospitalized. Dominguez-Barrio developed multiple pressure sores as a result.

Defendant asserts that these allegations do not amount to oppression, fraud or malice. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have alleged consistent, ongoing neglect to Dominguez-Barrio, who was immobile and nonverbal. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s managing agents ratified or authorized this conduct. This is sufficient to state a cause of action for elder abuse.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. As Plaintiffs have established elder abuse, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged entitlement to punitive damages. The motion to strike is DENIED.