Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.)
Plaintiffs further attempt to allege “recklessness” by stating that Defendants knew or should have known that decedent was at risk for falls, pressure ulcers, bowel abnormalities, malnutrition and dehydration.
Knowing these things, defendants nevertheless failed to provide proper assessment and care … Defendants neglected [decedent] and did not provide necessary services, care, and equipment as required by law in the care and protection of their patient … In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Defendants and each of them, failed to provide him with necessary medical care and custodial services, failed to protect him from health and safety hazards including mechanical falls.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Despite this attempt at alleging reckless neglect, Plaintiffs’ Complaint falls short, as it fails to allege specific facts to substantiate their claims.
Finally, in the second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew on March 27, 2008, when decedent was discharged home, the combined efforts of Debra White and episodic visits by visiting nurses could not provide the level of care [decedent] required for his various medical conditions. Once again, Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts to support the allegation that Defendants had the requisite knowledge.
As in the first cause of action, Plaintiffs go on to allege, without any supporting facts, that Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged above constitute neglect, as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code, section 15610.57, and were done with malice, oppression, fraud and/or recklessness within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code, section 156157.
Despite these serious allegations, Plaintiffs never state how Dr. Wong failed to provide proper assessment and care; they fail to describe any particular reckless, malicious, oppressive or fraudulent acts or omissions which were allegedly the legal cause of decedent’s harm. Plaintiffs simply use blanket allegations throughout the complaint to allege that Defendants collectively committed these actions and omissions without any supporting facts. Moreover, no conduct is specifically attributed to Defendant Wong, as discussed further in Section B below.
As previously discussed, the general rule is that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity. Lopez v. Southern Cal Rapid Trans. Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795. Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ complaint do they state any facts alleging that Dr. Wong made a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in the situation. They have failed to state facts sufficient to establish reckless neglect of an elder. Plaintiffs shall not recover any of the heightened remedies under the Elder Abuse Act, including punitive damages, as they have failed to allege facts which would entitle them to such remedies. (See Part 8 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.