Sababin v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 9/13/06 Sababin v. Sup. Ct. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| PRISCILLA SABABIN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; COVINA REHABILITATION CENTER, Real Party in Interest. | B190060 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC320678) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. David L. Minning, Judge. Petition granted.
Maher Guiley & Maher, Steven R. Maher, William M. Artigilere; Esner & Chang, Stuart B. Esner and Andrew N. Chang for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Giovanniello & Michels, Helen A. Michels, Karen A. Bocker, Kelene M. Stevens, and B. Eric Nelson for Real Party in Interest.
* * * * *
While at Huntington East Valley Hospital (hospital), Arlene Renteria (Renteria) died at age 38 due to infection to a sacral skin ulcer. She had been suffering from a degenerative disease known as Huntington's Chorea; the disease subjected her to the risk that her skin health would deteriorate. Just prior to being admitted to the hospital, Renteria was in the care of Covina Rehabilitation Center (Covina). Renteria's successors in interest (Renteria's successors)[1] sued Covina for, among other things, dependent adult abuse on the theory that Covina did not satisfy its custodial obligation to meet Renteria's basic needs. The trial court granted summary adjudication of the dependent adult abuse cause of action[2] on the ground that there was no evidence that Covina was guilty of something more than professional negligence. Renteria's successors challenge the trial court's order by way of the instant writ petition, contending, inter alia: (1) there are triable issues as to whether Covina's employees acted with recklessness, oppression or malice when they neglected to follow the care plan Covina established for maintaining the health of Renteria's skin,[3] and (2) there are triable issues as to whether Covina can be held liable for the conduct of its employees.
There are triable issues as to whether Covina's employees were guilty of reckless, oppressive or malicious neglect when they failed to follow Renteria's care plan for maintaining the health of her skin. Accordingly, we conclude that this is proper case for issuance of a peremptory writ.
Upon remand, the trial court shall consider Covina's argument that it is not liable for its employees' conduct.
FACTS
The second amended complaint
In the fourth cause of action for abuse of a dependent adult, the second amended complaint averred: When Renteria was admitted to the hospital, she was diagnosed with acute infective diarrhea, an infected stage IV decubitus ulcer on her left hand, a left hand postulate, dehydration, renal failure, and an electrolyte imbalance. A wound culture revealed the presence of methcillin resistant staph aureus (MRSA) in her left hand. Renteria was found to be 82 percent underweight. Pressure ulcers and a low albumin indicated that she was suffering from visceral protein malnutrition. There were pressure sores on her buttocks area. As well, she had vaginal bleeding. Her pubic hair had been shaved; a gynecological exam revealed a small abrasion on Renteria's left minor labia. She died a few months later. The cause of death was MRSA sepsis to an infected sacral skin ulcer. Her pain and subsequent death were caused by Covina's willful failure to provide her with necessary care.
Covina's motion for summary adjudication
In support of its motion for summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action,[4] Covina argued: Huntington's Chorea is a devastating genetic degenerative brain disorder that is characterized by uncontrolled movements, progressive dementia, and psychosis. There is no known cure for Huntington's Chorea, and it is usually fatal 10 to 15 years after its onset. Renteria was diagnosed in her early twenties, and when she died she was at the end stage of the disease. When she was admitted to the hospital's emergency room, the care providers did not indicate any problems regarding Renteria's sacral area. After she was admitted, redness in her sacral area was noted for the first time. Her skin remained intact for several days until her sacral area developed a stage three decubitus ucler. Renteria did not suffer the decubitus ulcer, or abuse, malnutrition, dehydration and infections at Covina. Covina complied with the standard of care. Her nutritional status was maintained to the highest practical degree considering her disease. She suffered dehydration due to a bout of diarrhea, a condition that was being treated.
Covina cannot be held liable under the elder and dependent adult abuse statutes unless it injured Renteria due to a total absence of care. Moreover, dependent adult abuse arises in the context of custodial care, not in the context of professional negligence. Neglectful adult dependent care is the failure to attend to the basic needs and comfort of dependent adults. Covina never failed to provide Renteria with custodial care; i.e., there is no evidence of custodial neglect. Finally, Renteria's successors have no evidence that Covina ratified any wrongful acts allegedly committed by its employees.
Dr. J. Thomas Millington reviewed Covina's records and declared: (1) Renteria was turned and repositioned on a regular basis; (2) she was monitored and her status was reported to her physician and family; (3) she was given regulated feedings to maintain nutrition and hydration; and (4) her skin condition was checked on a regular basis, and her bed was padded.
Renteria's successors' opposition
In opposition, Renteria's successors argued that the evidence showed that Covina was guilty, inter alia, of the following: (1) failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs; (2) failure to protect her from health and safety hazards; and (3) failure to reposition her.
They pointed out that Covina violated multiple nursing home regulations, some of which resulted in deficiency findings by the Department of Health Services (Department). According to the Department: Covina had a care plan which required Renteria's skin to be monitored everyday for redness and skin breakdown. A physician was to be notified if there was a need for a treatment order. Nonetheless, when Renteria was admitted to the hospital, she had red, squishy buttocks, a bleeding toe, and a bruised and reddened foot. Covina had no documentation of these conditions, and the medical chart revealed that a physician was never contacted for a treatment order.
The order granting summary adjudication
The trial court granted summary adjudication of the dependent adult abuse cause of action on the grounds that Renteria's successors failed to show that Covina was guilty of anything more than negligence.
This writ petition followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review summary adjudication de novo. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1001.) In doing so, we â€
