Articles Posted in Elder Abuse

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Based on the above conduct, in Dr. Brown’s opinion, Dr. Black committed elder abuse, and testifies as follows:

Q: Okay. Other than the failure to adequatley monitor, as you’ve characterized it, the scrotal condition, are you critical of Dr. Black for any other aspect of his care of this patient that you believe fell below the standard of care?

A: Well, in Dr. Black’s case, to be honest with you, I don’t feel that he just fell below the standard of care. I know there are legal terms for elder abuse. I’m aware of what those terms are, in terms of a conscious, you know, disregard for the patient, his care and safety. And, honestly, I really think that this does fall under that category.

And I don’t say that lightly; I’m a doctor myself. But the thing that troubles me is that Dr. Black, unlike Dr. Green – Dr. Black actually did look at the man’s scrotum and was aware that there was a problem there, and yet he sat on that problem for several days, and then sat on it for an additional five days, even after requesting urology consultation.

So, to me, it showed a – just an extreme deviation from the standard of care that would fall into the elder abuse category, if you’re going to use a legal term for it.

That’s my – – what claims are being made and not made, I’ll leave that to you folks. But I know there are issues of elder abuse here, and what I had told Mr. Moran was that if there was a case where elder abuse would be applicable, it would certainly be with Dr. Black’s care in this case.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The Pleadings.

The Judicial Council complaint states that Tina Steinford and the Estate of Paul Steinford complain that eleven doctors and two institutions negligently caused the death of Paul Steinford and committed elderabuse. Since the filing of the complaint Universal Hospital and Camino Towers have been dismissed from the case, along with doctors Washington, Greene, and Black.

The thrust of the negligence claim is that Mr. Steinford was negligently prescribed anti-psychotic medications without his consent.

The Plaintiffs explain why the complaint was filed July 31, 2007, more than one year following the death of Mr. Steinford on May 5, 2005. It is important for the court to appreciate that the black box warning on Risperidone (Risperdal) refers to the dangers of strokes in elderly people. Mr. Steinford did not die from a stroke. So it is evident that Ms. Steinford was guessing and grasping at straws until she found present counsel and a qualified phsician to review the records and advance the theories announced.

The Legal Argument.

a. A Demurrer Examines the Pleading to Determine Its Legal Sufficiency.

On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the standard of review is well settled. We give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

The plaintiffs oppose the demurrer brought by defendant doctors White, Black, Greene, Brown, Smith, and James, because the plaintiffs have set out a reason why the statute of limitations was extended beyond one year and for the time it took to file the action and that the elements of a claim for elder abuse are stated. Moreover, if the court finds any deficiencies with the complaint, the plaintiffs seek leave to amend consistent with the statements made about their claims.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Overview of the Case.

This case is about the poisoning of Paul Steinford by means of multiple psycho tropic drugs that should never have been used but certainly should have been stopped when the symptoms started that lead to his death. Many of those symptoms are disclosed by the drug companies as side effects of the psycho tropic drugs. All of the treating doctors should have known that the drugs had those known side effects that included symptoms that Mr. Steinford exhibited to them including difficulty swallowing and toxicity. Dr. Washington arrived on April 26, 2005, just before Mr. Steinford’s untimely death, and removed him from the psycho tropic drugs, regrettably too late to reverse the effects of those drugs and save his life.

Dr. Washington is dismissed from this lawsuit and deeply thanked for his correct actions obviously reflecting knowledge and caring. We apologize for including him. The fact of his removing Mr. Steinford from the harmful drugs was just discovered. All doctors arriving on or after April 26, 2005 have been dismissed.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO CONFORM TO PROOF MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME DURING TRIAL.

A motion for leave to amend to conform to proof may be made at any time during trial, so long as a judgment has not yet been entered. Union Bank v. Wendland (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 393, 400-401.

The statutes authorizing amendment of pleadings are construed liberally so that cases might be tried upon their merits in one trial where no prejudice to the opposing party or parties is demonstrated. Rainer v. Community Mem. Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 254. There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding. Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945. This liberal policy applies even to amendments requested during trial. However, the matter rests in the trial court’s sound discretion and is subject to appellate review only for abuse of discretion. Consilidated World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred, Ltd. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 373, 383.

Dr. Brown testified in his deposition that Dr. Black failed to adequately monitor Mr. Hernandez during his admission at East Los Angeles Doctor’s Hospital, which led to delayed definitive treatment of Mr. Hernandez’s scrotal cellulitis, which ultimately became an abscess. He further testifies that Dr. Black was aware of Mr. Hernandez’s scrotum, but didn’t monitor it properly and waited for a very long period of time before requesting a urology consultation. Mr. Hernandez was admitted into East Los Angeles Doctor’s Hospital on January 3, 2006, but Dr. Black did not request a urology consultation until January 13, 2006.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The Plaintiffs, John Hernandez, in and through his Successor-in-interest and heir, Robert Hernandez, and Robert Hernandez, an individual, submits the following opposition to defendants Edward Green, M.D. and Mark Black, D.O.’s Motion in Limine No. 1 precluding plaintiffs’ retained standard of care expert, Peter Brown, M.D. from testifying that they committed elder abuse.

INTRODUCTION

This is a Wrongful Death and Medical Malpractice action against Defendants Edward Green, M.D. (“Dr. Green”) and Mark Black, D.O. (“Dr. Black”) for failure to properly assess and medically treat the Decedent’s scrotal abscess.

On September 4, 2007, the Court granted Defendants Demurrer as to the Plaintiff’s Elder Abuse and Willful Misconduct causes of action against Dr. Green and Dr. Black.

Subsequent to the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer, on March 14, 2008, Plaintiffs medical expert, Peter Brown, M.D., testified in his deposition that at least as to Dr. Black, based on Dr. Black’s conduct as to the care and treatment of the decedent, John Hernandez

(“Mr. Hernandez”), in his medical opinion, Dr. Black not only fell below the standard of care, but had committed elder abuse.

Based on Dr. Brown’s opinion, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel for Defendants, Dr. Green and Dr. Black, informing him of their intent to make a motion to amend at trial according to proof. Please see the correspondence sent to defense counsel, Patrick Mayer, dated March 24, 2008.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SET FORTH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SURVIVORSHIP AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, PAUL SMITH, M.D.

Although the moving party was correct in stating the law that under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34, the damages recoverable by the successor in interest of the decedent are limited to the loss or damages that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, and does not allow for the recovery of the decedent’s pain and suffering, Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657(b) does allow for the recovery of postmortem pain and suffering of the decedent where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for elder abuse.

Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657 states in pertinent part:

Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for physical abuse as defined in Section 15610.63, or 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, the following shall apply, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law:

(a) The court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The term costs includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.

(b) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply. However, the damages recovered shall not exceed the damages permitted to be recovered pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3333.2 of the Civil Code.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IS DUPLICATIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, PAUL SMITH, M.D.

The Plaintiffs agree with the moving party’s argument that the Plaintiff’s second cause of action for Negligence is duplicative of the Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action for Professional Negligence as to the Defendant, Dr. Smith.

The Plaintiff concedes that a Demurrer as to the Plaintiff’s second cause of action for Negligence would be appropriate.

PLAINTIFFS SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PROPER REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE DEFENDANT, PAUL SMITH, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT

The Plaintiffs agree with the moving party that the statutes and regulations set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are applicable to health care facilities and not individual physicians, and that the Plaintiffs have failed to include the applicable statutes and regulations as to the Defendant, Dr. Smith.

Should the Court require that the Plaintiffs include these specific statutes and regulations at this time in the pleading stage, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court allow the Plaintiffs to take leave to amend the Complaint to assert the proper statutes and regulations applicable to the Defendant, Dr. Smith.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Throughout the decedent’s admission at Doctor’s Medical Center, the decedent’s allergic reaction to the Primaxin did not subside and the decedent continued to develop rashes over his body. Despite the decedent’s severe reaction to the Primaxin, on January 14, 2006, the Defendant, Dr. Smith, increased the decedent’s dosage of Primaxin to be administered every 8 hours instead of every 12 hours.

The decedent remained on Primaxin throughout his entire admission at Doctor’s Medical Center until his discharge on January 31, 2006, and continued through his admission at Universal Nursing Center from January 31, 2006 to February 6, 2006.

As a result of being on Primaxin for 30 days, the decedent’s body was consumed by Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, an inflammatory disorder of the skin which is triggered by the allergic reaction to Primaxin. By the time the decedent was transferred back to Doctor’s Medical Center on February 6, 2006, the decedent had already developed sloughing of the skin on his hands, forearms, and blisters all over his body and face.

These series of affirmative acts and omissions on the part of the Defendant, Dr. Smith, in failing to treat the decedent’s allergic reaction, and continuing the decedent on a course of antibiotics knowing that the decedent was highly sensitive to antibiotics and was acting severely to the Primaxin constitutes not only gross negligence, but rises to the level of reckless conduct, given Dr. Smith’s acute knowledge of the decedent’s condition, further subjecting him to the heightened remedies of EADACPA.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Pursuant to Intrieri v. Superior Court, an Elder Abuse Cause of Action Cannot be Disposed of in the Pleading Phase Where There is a Mere Inference of Reckless Conduct.

In Intrieri v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, the Court held that the mere inference that the defendant had consciously disregarded a resident’s safety raised a triable issue of fact concerning the reckless neglect element of an elder abuse claim.

In Intrieri, supra, a skilled nursing facility had on numerous occasions failed to take any action to address a resident’s pressure sores. It made no changes to the resident’s care plan even after complaints by the resident’s son, and further failed to follow a new care plan developed by an outside physician hired by the resident’s son. The infection of the pressure sores that resulted eventually led to amputation of the resident’s right toe, and thereafter her right leg below the knee. The Court held that it may be reasonably inferred from this chain of events that the defendant acted with reckless neglect in caring for the resident, and overturned a grant of summary judgment on the elder abuse cause of action.

Although Intrieri, supra, is a holding that governs the court’s review on summary judgment motions, it is argued that summary judgment motions are held to a higher standard of review. If the plaintiff in opposing a motion for summary judgment need only show a mere inference even after discovery has been conducted, then the Plaintiffs in opposing a Demurrer should not be held to a higher standard and be required to make its case in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs need only plead sufficient facts to put the Defendants on notice of an elder abuse cause of action against them, and be allowed to proceed through discovery to make its case.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

THE FACTS IN A COMPLAINT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF RULING ON A DEMURRER

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts property pleaded. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591. No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.

THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO PLEAD A CAUSE FOR ELDER ABUSE AGAINST DEFENDANT PAUL SMITH, M.D.

As the moving party succinctly points out in its Demurrer, a plaintiff must plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence reckless conduct in order to establish a claim for elder abuse and that the acts were ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporate defendant. As set forth herein, Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to present a prima facie case for elder abuse; however, Defendant is mistaken if it believes that Plaintiffs must also at this pleading stage prove the Elder Abuse claim against it. That is what discovery and trial are for. As to whether or not a jury will actually agree that the Defendant, Dr. Smith is guilty of Elder Abuse is not for this Court to determine at this time. (See Part 4 of 7.)

Continue Reading ›