Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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 Elements Of An Elder Abuse Cause Of Action
In order to establish a violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, plaintiffs must prove all of the following elements:
1. That the Defendants and/or Defendants’ employees had care or custody of Emma Hill;
2. That Emma Hill was 65 years of age or older while she was in Defendants’ care or custody;
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
3. That one or more of Defendants’ employees failed to use the degree of care that a reasonable healthcare practitioner in the same situation would have used by:
a. failing to assist in personal hygiene or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter;
b. failing to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs;
c. failing to prevent malnutrition or dehydration; or
d. failing to protect Emma Hill from health and safety hazards.
4. That the employees acted with recklessness, malice, oppression or fraud;
5. That Emma Hill was harmed;
6. That the employees’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Emma Hill’s harm; and
7. One or more of the following:
a. That the employees were officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendants acting in a corporate/employment capacity; or
b. That an officer, a director, or a managing agent of Defendants had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees and employed them with a knowing disregard of the rights or safety of others; or
c. That an officer, a director, or a managing agent of Defendants authorized the employees’ conduct; or
d. That an officer, a director, or a managing agent of Defendants knew of the employees’ wrongful conduct and adopted or approved the conduct after it occurred.
See CACI 3105.
Nearly all of the elements above have been discussed already. However, because the managing agent issue has been the subject of extensive confusion (and litigation relating thereto), plaintiffs discuss this issue in further detail in the section to follow. (See Part 14 of 20.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.