California Supreme Court Clarifies Parties Potentially Liable for “Neglect” Under State’s Elder Abuse Law

I think it is safe to say that California has one of the most significant — and for some, controversial — “elder protection” laws in the U.S.  For example, while all states permit state authorities to investigate and intervene in instances of elder abuse, California’s statute recognizes a victim’s private right of action for damages, arising from physical abuse, neglect, or fiduciary abuse of an elderly or dependent adult. There are certain proof requirements and limitations on the damages that can be awarded under California’s Elder Abuse Act, but, where the plaintiff shows clear and convincing evidence of recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, the prevailing party can also obtain “heightened remedies,” including “reasonable attorneys fees” and costs.  At the same time, the history of the California law also reflects a legislative tension between a determination to address elder abuse and concern about the potential impact of the broader remedy in so-called traditional “medical malpractice” claims.  This tension plays out in a ruling by the California Supreme Court in the long-running case of Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group Inc.  In the unanimous decision published May 19. 2016, the court helpfully summarizes its own holding:

We granted review to determine whether the definition of neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15600 et seq.; the Elder Abuse Act or Act) applies when a health care provider — delivering care on an outpatient basis — failed to refer an elder patient to a specialist.  What we conclude is that the Act does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient. 

The court further explains, “It is the nature of the elder or dependent adult’s relationship with the defendant — not the defendant’s professional standing — that makes the defendant potentially liable for neglect.  Because defendants did not have a caretaking or custodial relationship with the decedent, we find that plaintiffs cannot adequately allege neglect under the Elder Abuse Act.”

The California Supreme Court concluded that the Winn plaintiffs cannot bring a claim for statutory “elder neglect” arising out of allegations that treating physicians failed  for two years to refer an 83 year-old woman to a vascular specialist. The suit dates back to 2007-2009, with the patient alleged to have died from complications associated with chronic ulcers of her lower extremities.  The unanimous ruling reverses the California Court of Appeals’ 2 to 1 ruling in favor of the statutory claim, issued in May 2013.  

This ruling does seem to leave nursing homes and similar “custodial” care providers potentially subject to the enhanced remedies of California’s Elder Abuse Act.