Articles Posted in Elder Abuse

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

While the conditions under which a corporate entity may be disregarded vary according to the circumstances in each case, id., one Court of Appeal has set forth an extensive, though non-exhaustive, list of factors that trial courts consider in assessing alter ego liability: (1) the commingling of funds and other assets among the subject corporate entities; (2) the treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own; (3) the failure to obtain authority to issue stock or to issue stock; (4) the holding out by an individual that he is personally liable for the debts of the corporation; (5) the failure to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records; (6) the identical equitable ownership in the two entities; (7) the identification of the equitable owners thereof with the domination and control of the two entities; (8) identification of the directors and officers of the two entities as the responsible supervision and management;

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(9) sole ownership in a corporation by one individual or the members of a family; (10) the use of the same office or business location; (11) the employment of the same employees and/or attorney; (12) the failure to adequately capitalize a corporation; (13) the total absence of corporate assets, and undercapitalization; (14) the use of a corporation as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or the business of an individual or another corporation;

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

The same result obtains here. The XYZ Corporate Defendants wholly own Universal Healthcare, Inc. and reap the financial rewards of its operations. To the extent that they have given over all discretionary authority to run the operations to the charge nurses, director of nursing services, and administrator of that facility, under the reasoning and holding of Textron Financial, those individuals are the managing agents of the XYZ Corporate Defendants irrespective of whether these individuals are housed within a separate corporate shell. The conduct by these managing agents in recklessly neglecting Ms. Hill subjects the XYZ Corporate Defendants to elder abuse and punitive damages liability. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In addition to the foregoing, the evidence firmly supports a finding that Universal Healthcare, Inc. is merely an alter ego of the XYZ Corporate Defendants. Two general requirements for application of the alter ego doctrine are (1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow. Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal. 2d 792, 796 (1957). (See Part 7 of 20.)

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

While the XYZ Corporate Defendants have tried valiantly to insulate themselves from liability by erecting an ever changing, opaque corporate structure, one fact remains clear they own Universal Healthcare, Inc. Every penny of profit Universal Healthcare, Inc. earns goes to XYZ Healthcare California, Inc. which has one shareholder – XYZ Healthcare, Inc. Every penny that goes to XYZ Healthcare, Inc. rolls to its one shareholder, XYZ, Inc. Having reaped all of the benefits of Universal Healthcare, Inc., the XYZ Corporate Defendants cannot now turn tail when they are exposed to liability and pretend that they have nothing to do with Universal Healthcare’s operations.

Indeed, as is discussed below, the XYZ Corporate Defendants control the operations at Universal Healthcare, Inc. in fundamental ways and thus are directly liable for the reckless neglect that Ms. Hill suffered. They supervise the administrator, set the budget, and control the finances of the facility, among other things. Particularly noteworthy, the XYZ Corporate Defendants ultimately set the staffing budget for the facilities, which budget cuts staffing to the bone and, as discussed, was a substantial contributing factor to Universal’s reckless neglect of Ms. Hill in the aftermath of her fall on September 2.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, the fact that the XYZ Corporate defendants delegate patient care to third party employees within a separate corporate entity should not and does not insulate them from liability. See Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1061 (2004).

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

The XYZ Corporate Defendants’ Liability For The Reckless Neglect Of Emma Hill

Universal Healthcare, Inc. is part of a 33 facility chain owned and operated by one Neil Greene and his eight children. Mr. Greene is most well known for his development of golf courses and other properties throughout California. For reasons unknown, the Greene family has elected to shroud its facilities in an ever shifting web of corporate entities that even the most seasoned of Universal operatives find befuddling. The parent company over the entire skilled nursing facility operations is Universal, Inc. The true ownership of Universal, Inc. is kept in secrecy, other than a designation that it is owned by a number of trusts. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Universal, Inc. was initially formed in approximately 1990. The Greene family had owned and operated nursing home facilities dating back to at least the 1980s. Prior to Universal, Inc. being formed, the Greene family’s skilled nursing facilities were owned by two corporate entities, Rose Enterprises and Mountain Medical Enterprises. An entity known as Universal Headquarters, Inc. was created at the same time that Universal, Inc. was created. Universal Headquarters, Inc. provided various services to the Universal skilled nursing facilities. Thereafter, Rose Enterprises changed its name to East West, Inc.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

All witnesses also will agree that when Ms. Hill became entirely immobile after her September 2 hip fracture, she was at increased risk for developing pressure sores. After September 2, Ms. Hill was putting constant pressure on her sacral area either in bed or in her geri chair. This reality required facility staff to reposition her every two hours, check her skin every shift, and use pressure relieving devices while she was in bed or in the chair. According to the documentation, the facility did none of these things. It did not update the care plan — which is the “blue print” for action – to instruct care providers to reposition Ms. Hill. On the overwhelming number of shifts, there is no reference whatsoever to Ms. Hill being repositioned. Aside from one weekly summary (which itself is fraught with assumptions and mistakes), there is not a single reference to Ms. Hill’s skin being inspected. There is no evidence that any pressure relieving devices were used with Ms. Hill.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The jury will learn that understaffing at the facility was the underlying cause of Ms. Hill being warehoused after her fall on September 2. In the days after her fall, Station 4 was staffed by a single Licensed Vocation Nurse and several CNAs. The LVN thus was responsible for overseeing over 40 Alzheimer’s patients. The supervising nurse that usually was also working was off September 3, 4, and 5, as was the Director of Nurses.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

From March 1, 2007 to September 2, 2007, Ms. Hill was fully ambulatory without any assistive devices. As a result of Universal’s failure to devise and implement an effective plan of care to address Ms. Hill’s fall risk, she suffered five falls at the facility. During the fifth and final fall on September 2, 2007, Ms. Hill fell to the ground and immediately exhibited signs and symptoms of a hip fracture. Emma never walked again.

A community mobile x-ray was performed on Ms. Hill on September 2, 2007, which stated no evidence for fracture but that acute insufficiency fracture may not be seen in the presence of diffuse osteopenia. The same report noted that Ms. Hill had severe diffuse osteopenia. As the Court will hear, everyone agrees that this x-ray result was questionable and inconclusive and did not rule out fracture. Given this, the facility was required to carefully monitor Ms. Hill for signs and symptoms of a fracture on every shift after her fall. The evidence will show that the facility utterly failed to carry out this responsibility. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

When Ms. Hill — who was previously walking laps around the facility — was unable to walk a full day after the fall, the facility was obligated to notify the doctor and get Ms. Hill medical care. Everyone will agree to this premise, including Universal’s Station 4 supervisor (Anne Smith), Universal’s nurse expert, and Universal’s physician expert.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

Plaintiffs Emma Hill and Noelle White’s Trial Brief
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs offer the following very brief overview of some of the relevant facts that will be adduced at the trial in this matter. This discussion is by no means exhaustive. It merely is designed to give the Court a broad overview of the facts and issues in the case. For more detail, plaintiffs refer the Court to their opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the declarations attached thereto.

Universal Healthcare’s Reckless Neglect Of Emma Hill

Emma Hill was 78 years old at the time of her admission to Universal Healthcare on March 1, 2007. In her earlier years, Ms. Hill worked in personnel for various federal agencies and served in that capacity for several years in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. She loved to dance and she flew airplanes. Emma was a wonderfully warm, loving mother and grandmother.

For several years leading up to her admission at Universal, Ms. Hill lived in Florida with her son Randall and his wife. Unfortunately, as the years progressed, Emma became forgetful and she ultimately was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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 case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

PLAINTIFF HAS ALLEGED SUFFICIENT FACTS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, the allegations of the complaint must be read as a whole, all parts in their context, and the court must assume the truth of the allegations. Courtesy Ambulance Service v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1519; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 91. In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Civil Code §3294(a) provides that when a defendant is guilty of oppression, malice or fraud, plaintiff may recover punitive damages. Civil Code § 3294(c) defines the terms malice and oppression:

(1) Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) Oppression means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

Under Civil Code §3294, the terms willful, malicious, and oppressive are the statutory description of the type of conduct which can sustain a claim for punitive damages. [W]here the complaint pleads sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which relief is sought and to permit the drawing of appropriate legal conclusions at trial, absence of the labels willful, malicious, and oppressive from the complaint, does not defeat the claim for punitive damages. Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963.

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 case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

DEFENDANT’S UNCERTAINTY ARGUMENT FAILS

When a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, National was required to specify exactly how and why the pleading is uncertain and where such uncertainty appears. Good practice requires reference to page and line. See, Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809. As noted in the treatise, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, (TRG 2009) 7:88:1, page 7(1)-38, Although not specifically required by CRC 3.1230(a), a demurrer for uncertainty should refer by page and line number to the particular allegations or part of the pleading that is uncertain. Plaintiff should not have search or guess. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant sets forth in its notice, but does not provide any argument in its Points & Authorities, that the first cause of action is uncertain, without citing to any page or line, as to facts of defendant’s officer, director or managing agent’s reckless conduct. As discussed above, to meet the standard of Civil Code §3294(b), plaintiff has the option of pleading that Defendant’s officer, director, or managing agent had advance knowledge of the unfitness of individual employees and employed him/her with a knowing disregard of the rights or safety of others or Defendant’s officer, director, or managing agent ratified the conduct of defendant’s employees. The issue is the sufficiency of the facts of defendant’s ratification of what this court has already held are sufficiently stated facts of defendant’s staff’s reckless neglect of Mr. White.

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 case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

INSUFFICIENT STAFFING AND UNFIT EMPLOYEES

Although plaintiff has pled sufficient facts of defendant’s ratification, as set forth above, plaintiff has also alleged sufficient facts that a managing agent of defendant had advance knowledge of the unfitness of individual employees and defendant continued to employee that person with a knowing disregard of the rights or safety of others. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Reading the First Amended Complaint as a whole, and in context, a reasonable inference that may be drawn from the facts that defendant violated the Patient Care Plan, physician orders and policies and procedures and fed Mr. White solid food and failed to reposition Mr. White as required to avoid his developing serious bed pressure sores, is that defendant was understaffed and certain staff was incompetent and unfit for the job of providing care to Mr. White.

Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant failed to employ sufficient and adequate staff to meet the care needs of Mr. White, including failing to employ sufficient numbers of supervising staff to oversee and monitor patient care, including responding to complaints and requests for investigations.

Continue Reading ›