It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse and medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
LEGAL AUTHORITY cont.
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleadings as a matter of law, and raises issues of law regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. (See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 589; James v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1968) 261Cal.App.2d 415, 416-417) The demurrer presents an issue at law as to the sufficiency of the alleged facts set out in the pleading. It follows that whether a complaint states sufficient facts to avoid a facial defect is a question of law which may be resolved upon demurrer. (See Saliter v. Pierce Brothers Mortuaries (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 292, 300.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
ARGUMENT
The First and Second Causes of Action Do Not State Facts Sufficient to Support a Cause of Action Against Defendant Dr. Wong for Reckless Neglect of an Elder.
Plaintiffs Allege Many Legal Conclusions, But Fail to Support Those Conclusions with Specific Factual Allegations.
For purposes of testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (See Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)
In the instant case, while Plaintiffs’ set forth many allegations of reckless, malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent actions and omissions, the allegations are merely conclusions of law, unsupported by any specific facts. As discussed in the concurrent Motion to Strike, although Plaintiffs’ Complaint repeatedly alleges that Defendants acted with fraud, oppression, malice and/or recklessness, Plaintiffs simply use the correct buzzwords, but fail to set forth specific facts to support these allegations, as required under the relevant statutes and case law. Such lack of specificity cannot substantiate a claim for reckless abuse of an elder.
Moreover, the few specific allegations that are made fail to specify to which of the several defendants the allegations are being attributed, as discussed further in Section B below. (See Part 3 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.