(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.
Section 15657 of the Welfare & Institutions Code further provides that upon a showing of reckless conduct, which is a conscious disregard of the high degree of probability that an injury will occur, plaintiffs bringing an Elder Abuse claim are entitled to heightened remedies not otherwise available for Smithple negligence or professional negligence, including punitive damages and recovery of their attorney’s fees.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse must fail, and this Demurrer be overruled and Motion to Strike the Elder Abuse cause of action and punitive damages language be denied. (See Part 6 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.