[11/04] Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre
Judgment after a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on his claims of negligence, elder abuse based on reckless neglect, and violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights is: 1) affirmed in part, where there was no error in the trial court's rejection of defendants' jury instruction on clear and convincing evidence and in its refusal to instruct the jury with respect to state regulations on the use of restraints in nursing homes; but 2) reversed in part and remanded as to the verdict on negligence and elder abuse, where the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a class A citation and a statement of deficiencies issued by the state Department of Public Health (DPH) against defendant, but the evidentiary error did not affect the jury verdict on the Patient's Bill of Rights; and 3) reversed in part and remanded, as to the monetary award which exceeds the amount authorized by Health and Safety Code section 1430(b), and the award of attorney fees.
[10/28] Young v. Horizon West
The trial court's order denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff-former patient's claims of elder abuse and neglect, negligent care, and violations of the Patients' Bill of Rights , is affirmed, where the trial court properly determined that plaintiff's daughter lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement on plaintiff's behalf.
[10/28] Goldman v. Sunbridge Healthcare, LLC
The trial court's orders denying defendants' motions to compel arbitration of plaintiff-wife's claims of neglect of her deceased husband, and negligent infliction of emotional distress and the wrongful death of plaintiff's deceased husband while in defendants' care, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff-wife did not have authority to sign the arbitration agreements on her deceased husband's behalf and did not sign the agreements in her individual capacity; and 2) public policy does not require plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in the absence of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
[10/08] People v. Neasham
Defendant's conviction for committing theft from an elder and dependent adult by selling her an annuity policy which the prosecutor argued to the jury "was an unsuitable product for her age" despite its approval for sale to such a person by the California Department of Insurance is reversed, where: 1) there was no evidence that defendant appropriated the elder's funds to his own use or to the benefit of anyone other than the elder herself, nor was there evidence that defendant made any misrepresentations or used any artifice in connection with the sale; and 2) the jury was incorrectly instructed that to convict, it need find only that the purchase of the annuity deprived the elder of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of her property, eliminating the necessity of proving that defendant had any such intention.
[06/26] Marriage of Greenway
The trial court determination that husband was mentally capable of making a reasoned decision to end his marriage, is affirmed, where: 1) the mental capacity required to end one's marriage should be similar to the mental capacity required to begin the marriage; 2) the trial court correctly started with the baseline presumption Lyle had the capacity to make a reasoned decision to end his marriage, and cited to several facts in the record that supported the presumption; 3) the testimony from the husband and his experts provided ample evidence that husband was mentally capable of exercising a judgment, and expressing a wish, that the marriage be dissolved on account of irreconcilable differences and has done so; 4) the trial court did not misstate facts of the case; and 5) the trial court's finding of irreconcilable differences in this case is amply supported by substantial evidence.
[06/21] Drake v. Pinkham
Summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, on plaintiff's petition to invalidate two amendments to a revocable trust, for a declaration that defendants predeceased the decedent, for imposition of a constructive trust, and for damages, is affirmed on the ground of laches, where: 1) plaintiff failed to bring the action until after decedent had passed away; and 2) this failure was necessarily prejudicial where, as here, each and every cause of action set forth in the underlying petition centered on decedent, her mental capacity, defendant's influence over her, and her understanding of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and her estate.
[06/05] Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre
Judgment for plaintiff in suit alleging negligence, elder abuse based on reckless neglect and violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights is: 1) affirmed in part as to the jury's verdict on the Patient's Bill of Rights, where there was no error in the trial court's rejection of defendants' jury instruction on clear and convincing evidence and in its refusal to instruct the jury with state regulations on the use of restraints in nursing homes; but 2) reversed in part, and remanded where a) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a class A citation and a statement of deficiencies issued by the state Department of Public Health (DPH) against defendant San Marino, b) the erroneous admission of the citation prejudiced the jury verdict on negligence and elder abuse but not the verdict on violations of the Patient's Bill of Rights, c) the civil penalties exceed the amount authorized by Health and Safety Code section 1430(b), and d) the award of attorney fees is also reversed.
[05/24] Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc.
The trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for elder abuse, based on defendant-physicians' repeated decisions not to refer their mother to a vascular specialist over a two-year period during which her diminishing vascular flow worsened without treatment, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the elder abuse statute does not limit liability to health care providers with custodial obligations; 2) plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleges reckless neglect; and 3) the question whether defendants' conduct was reckless, rather than merely negligent, is for a jury to decide.
[01/28] Gregory v. Cott
The primary assumption of risk doctrine bars plaintiff from recovering on her claims for battery, negligence and premises liability against defendants, where plaintiff is an in-home caregiver providing services to defendant-wife for Alzheimer's disease and the inherent risk of hazardous conduct by an Alzheimer's patient renders the possibility of injury obvious and negates the duty of care usually owed by the defendant for those particular risks of harm.
[01/04] Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living
In action for elder abuse, wrongful death, and related survival claims against defendant owners and operators of a residential care facility for the elderly, trial court's order denying defendants' petition to arbitrate claims is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel arbitration of any of the claims; 2) Herbert v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 718 has no bearing on third party wrongful death claims outside the context of medical malpractice claims pursuant to CA Code of Civil Procedure section 1295; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common questions of law and fact if the survivor claims but not the wrongful death claim were ordered to arbitration.
[09/25] Gross v. Rell
In plaintiff's suit against number of defendants, including his conservator, a court-appointed attorney, and a nursing home, asserting both federal and state law claims, district court's dismissal is vacated and remanded where: 1) the scope of federal quasi-judicial immunity for conservators and court-appointed attorneys for conservatees is the same as Connecticut quasi-judicial immunity; but 2) the nursing home in whose care the conservator placed the plaintiff-conservatee is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.