Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24PSCV00015, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV00015 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: K
1. Defendants Inland Valley Partners, LLC dba
Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation Center and Renew Health Consulting
Services, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED. The court will hear from counsel
for Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend is requested, and as to which
cause(s) of action, and will require an offer of proof if so.
2. Defendants Inland Valley Partners, LLC and Renew Health Consulting Services, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.
Background
Plaintiff is a
dependent adult. Plaintiff was a resident at Inland Valley Care and
Rehabilitation Center in Pomona, from in or about May 2023 through July 2023.
Plaintiff developed severe pressure sores as a result of deficiencies in care.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Inland Valley Partners, LLC, Renew Health Consulting Services, LLC and Does 1-250 for:
1.
Dependent Adult Abuse (Pursuant to the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600,
et seq.)
2.
Negligence
A Case Management Conference is set for April 4, 2024.
1. Demurrer
Legal Standard
A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)
When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)
Discussion
Inland Valley Partners, LLC dba Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation Center and Renew Health Consulting Services, LLC (together, “Defendants”) demur, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), to the first cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.
The elements of a cause of action for dependent abuse and neglect are determined by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”). (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.) The EADACPA affords heightened remedies to elders and dependent adults who can establish “by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for . . . neglect as defined in Section 15610.57, and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657, subd. (a).)
“Neglect” is defined in Section 15610.57 as “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise” and includes, inter alia, the “(1) Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision or food, clothing, or shelter. (2) Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs . . . (3) Failure to protect from health and safety hazards. (4) Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.”
The EADACPA excludes liability for acts of professional negligence; it does not apply to simple or gross negligence by health care providers. (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 32). Neglect under the EADACPA “refers not to the substandard performance of medical services but, rather, to the failure of those responsible for attending to the basic needs and comforts of elderly or dependent adults, regardless of their professional standing, to carry out their custodial obligations. Thus, the statutory definition of ‘neglect’ speaks not of the undertaking of medical services, but of the failure to provide medical care.” (Sababin v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 81, 89 [quotation marks and citation omitted].)
Further, a plaintiff must show defendant was guilty of “‘recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of [physical, neglectful, or financial elder abuse.]’” (Benun v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 113, 119 [citation omitted].) Recklessness “refers to a subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence, which has been described as a ‘deliberate disregard’ of the ‘high degree of probability’ that an injury will occur.” (Delaney, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 31.) Oppression, fraud and malice involve intentional or conscious wrongdoing of a despicable or injurious nature. (Id.) A plaintiff must also show that an employer “had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice” and, “[w]ith respect to a corporate employer, [that the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (b); Welf & Inst. Code, 15657, subd. (c).)
Several
factors, then, “must be present for conduct to constitute neglect within the meaning
of the Elder Abuse Act and thereby trigger the enhanced remedies available
under the Act. The plaintiff must allege (and ultimately prove by clear and
convincing evidence) 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; (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 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). The
plaintiff must also allege (and ultimately prove by clear and convincing
evidence) that the neglect caused the elder or dependent adult to suffer physical harm, pain
or mental suffering. Finally, the 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.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198
Cal.App.4th 396, 406-407 [quotation marks and citations omitted].)
The court determines that Plaintiff has failed to plead a
cause of action for dependent abuse. Plaintiff has alleged, in relevant part,
as follows: Plaintiff is a “dependent adult.” (Complaint, ¶ 18). In February
2023, Plaintiff suffered a fall that resulted in head trauma and required brain
surgery. (Id., ¶ 23). In or about May 2023, Plaintiff was admitted to
Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation Center (“Facility”) for rehabilitation
and skilled nursing care, where he remained through July 2019. (Id., ¶¶ 2,
19 and 24). Upon admission to the Facility, Plaintiff was non-verbal, unable to
make his needs known and was unable to walk. (Id., ¶ 23). While at the
Facility, Plaintiff suffered from a Stage II+ pressure ulcer on his coccyx area
and a Stage III+ pressure ulcer on his left heel. (Id., ¶¶ 22). Facility
“systematically and repeatedly failed to provide [Plaintiff] with the medical
and custodial care that he required,” including by leaving him in his urine and
feces for extended periods of time, failing to provide him with adequate and
proper personal hygiene, failing to turn and reposition him while he was in
bed, and failing to provide him with adequate nutrition and hydration to “stave
off” skin breakdown. (Id., ¶ 27; see also, ¶¶ 35 and 39). Additionally,
Plaintiff was not bathed as required and his bedsheets were not changed as
necessary. (Id., ¶ 28).
Plaintiffs have failed to plead with specificity facts stating when and how often Defendants allegedly failed to provide him with appropriate hygiene, nutrition and hydration, failed to reposition him and failed to attend to toileting issues. Plaintiff has failed to plead with specificity facts demonstrating that Defendants failed to provide care to Plaintiffs’ “either with knowledge that injury was substantially certain to befall the elder or dependent adult . . . or with conscious disregard of the high probability of such injury. . .” (Carter, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at 407.) Plaintiff has otherwise made generic allegations of “understaffing,” “underfunding” and “lack of training” (¶¶ 7, 13, 24, 28, 47, 49, 50, 52, 62-64 and 72), “disregard[]” for Plaintiff’s “conditions and custodial needs” (Id., ¶ 24) and “fraudulent conceal[ment]” of Plaintiff’s condition (Id., ¶¶ 28-29) without providing any specific facts regarding same. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to plead any causal link with specificity. Plaintiff has failed to plead with specificity facts demonstrating the alleged corporate authorization or ratification of any wrongful conduct.
Defendants’ demurrer is sustained on this basis.
2. Motion to Strike
Based upon the ruling made on the demurrer, the motion to strike is denied as moot.