Case Summaries
Elder Law
[08/30] HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a residential nursing facility's suit against California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for breach of contract and for violating the Insurance Code for refusing to provide plaintiffs with defense counsel and indemnification for underlying lawsuits for elder abuse, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) as a creature of statute, and not of contract, in some instances CIGA may not be responsible for an insured loss to the same extent as the insolvent insurer might be under the terms of its insurance contract; and 2) Pennsylvania's liquidation order imposed a June 30, 2005 deadline for filing against an insurer and because plaintiff did not meet the deadline, CIGA may not honor their claims.
[08/09] Clark v. Superior Court
In senior citizens' suit against an insurance company, claiming deceptive business practices relating to the purchase and sale of annuity contracts, and claiming that statutory law entitled them to a trebling of the award, court of appeal's grant of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter a new order denying defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed as, because Civil Code section 3345 authorizes the trebling of a remedy only when it is in the nature of a penalty, and because restitution under the unfair competition law is not a penalty, an award of restitution under the unfair competition law is not subject to section 2234's trebling provision.
[07/12] Das v. Bank of Am. N.A.
In a daughter's suit for elder abuse against Bank of America, claiming that the bank failed to report financial abuse involving her father and engaged in other misconduct, including predatory lending, trial court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) as section 15610.30(b)'s 2008 amendments to the statutory scheme were substantive, rather than procedural, and the Legislature did not state that the amendments were retroactive in effect, they are inapplicable to plaintiff's claims; 2) plaintiff's allegations regarding defendant's failure to comply with the statutory reporting duty state no claim against defendant; 3) the demurrers to plaintiff's remaining claims were properly sustained; and 4) there is no basis for finding the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
[05/06] FAL-Meridian, Inc. v. US Dep't of Health & Human Serv.
A nursing home's petition to set aside a final decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, that imposed a civil penalty of $7,100 for having violated a regulation under the Medicare and Medicaid provisions of the Social Security Act, is denied as the nursing home failed to tender evidence that would show that it had done everything possible to minimize the risk of an accident to the deceased resident.
[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.
[12/22] Massey v. Mercy Med. Center Redding
In plaintiff's negligence action against a nurse and the hospital that employed the nurse alleging that he sustained injury after falling from a walker because the nurse placed the plaintiff on the walker and left him unattended, judgment of the trial court is reversed in part where: 1) the question of nurse's alleged negligence for the fall poses a question of common knowledge, and therefore does not require expert opinion testimony; and 2) trial court's judgment that denied plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to add causes of action for battery, fraud and elder abuse is affirmed.
[12/21] Grace Healthcare of Benton v. US Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs.
In a petition for review of a civil monetary penalty imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on petitioner nursing home for an "immediate jeopardy" violation of 42 C.F.R. section 483.13(c), which required nursing homes to thoroughly investigate all allegations of resident neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown sources, the petition is granted where the Secretary's finding of the likely harm necessary to warrant an immediate-jeopardy-level finding was based on pure speculation and not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole.
[12/01] Yarick v. Pacificare of California
In plaintiff-estate's suit against defendant health care providers and health care benefits providers alleging that the events resulting in decedent's death happened because of the financial pressures and incentive that arose from the care providers' contracts with the defendants, trial court's order sustaining defendants' demurrer is affirmed as: 1) federal law expressly preempts applications of state laws where standards for Medicare Advantage plans are established pursuant to the Medicare law; and 2) to the extent the plaintiff seeks to allege causes of action based on state common law concepts of duty independent of the Health and Safety Code provisions cited, those common law causes of action are preempted.
[11/30] Holbert v. Fremont Inv. & Loan
In plaintiff's suit against a financial lender, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not required to comply with the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), which applies when the finance charges imposed on a loan exceed a certain threshold; 2) two charges imposed on plaintiff, one to pay off a preexisting debt to another lender and another to satisfy a prepayment penalty on a prior home loan, were not finance charges within the meaning of HOEPA; 3) plaintiff has not established a claim against defendant for unfair business practices; and 4) while plaintiff may have a viable claim against her loan broker for financial elder abuse based on various misrepresentations made during the loan process, she failed to link that claim to defendant, who is as much a victim of the broker's misrepresentations as plaintiff.
[10/29] People v. Medlin
An order finding defendants-nurses factually innocent of felony charges of dependent adult abuse likely to produce great bodily harm or death and directing destruction of their records is reversed as, notwithstanding their acquittals, the evidence provided reasonable cause to believe that respondents committed the offense of which they were charged.
[08/13] Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co.
Trial court judgment denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is affirmed where the trial and appeal are a single proceeding and defendant was still the overall prevailing party after plaintiff dismissed its suit against it, despite plaintiff's success on an appeal of the award of attorney's fees.
[06/23] Gdowski v. Gdowski
Trial court issuance of a protective order against defendant under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is reversed where: 1) a protective order under the Elder Abuse Act may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated; and 2) the trial court erred in basing its decision in issuing the protective order on counsel's conduct rather than on substantial evidence.
[04/29] People v. Henning
Conviction for financial elder abuse is affirmed where: 1) the jury was given only the erroneous portion of CALCRIM No. 1804 regarding corroboration, and was thus not instructed correctly that the corroborating writing must be false and was not instructed as to the other possible methods of corroboration; but 2) the error was manifestly harmless under any standard of review.
[02/19] Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland
In a suit by a nursing home operator against Indiana State Department of Health inspectors alleging violations of its Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants focused on certain affirmative defenses and the sufficiency of proof on the federal claims, the defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, thus the district court's order was not an improper sua sponte summary judgment on the state law claims; and 2) summary judgment was also appropriate on the merits since the state law claims required proof of malice or ulterior motive.
[02/18] Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.
In an age discrimination action, the District Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint is affirmed. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act is the sole remedy for age discrimination in employment, so Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim could not proceed.
