FRANCISCO ARRIAGA; ET AL. vs. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS; ET AL.

Analysis. Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1109 (Kruthanooch) speaks directly to the situation before the court.

In Kruthanooch a patient presented to an emergency room with weakness and lightheadedness, and a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. (Id. at p. 1116.)

The hospital staff left ECG pads on the patient when he underwent an MRI, causing him a burn on his abdomen. (Id. at pp. 1116-1117.)

The patient was admitted to the hospital and given IV fluids and 24-hour cardiac monitoring; he was discharged two days later. (Id. at pp. 1117-1118.)

The patient asserted civil claims against the hospital notably including one for elder abuse, based on the MRI burn. (Id. at p. 1118.)

Though the jury found for the patient on the elder abuse claim, the trial court granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the hospital did not have a caretaking or custodial relationship with the patient. (Id. at p. 1119.)

The Second District Court of Appeal held this correct. (Id. at p. 1122.)

The California Supreme Court has held that the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act requires a caretaking or custodial relationship to exist between a plaintiff and defendant, meaning a robust relationship featuring significant ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs that a fully competent adult could handle alone. (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152 (Winn).)

With this in mind the Kruthanooch court found that there was no caretaking or custodial relationship in the case under analysis as the hospital had a relationship with the patient for only a very limited duration and provided for his needs only incidentally to circumscribed medical care. (Kruthanooch at p. 1128.)

There was no evidence that the patient, ill though he was, needed any help with basic functions. (Id. at pp. 1128-1129.)

He was in the hospital’s care for only two days. (Id. at p. 1129.)

This was not an “ongoing,” “robust” caretaking relationship of “significant” responsibility.” (Ibid.)

No one explicitly assumed responsibility for the patient’s basic functions. (Ibid.)

Decedent in the instant case was likewise only in SUTTER SOLANO’s care for a very brief amount of time – a matter of hours, not even the couple of days of Kruthanooch – and was given basic care only incidentally to emergency room treatment.

Plaintiffs’ arguments that a caretaking relationship was formed because Decedent was given clothes and a warm room to occupy are too general.

Any hospital will give a naked patient a hospital gown.

A hospital cannot help but have its patients be indoors, too.

The argument that SUTTER SOLANO assumed responsibility for Decedent’s care because it monitored his vital signs is likewise unavailing because it attempts to impose a caretaking relationship on routine, universal emergency room activities.

Further, Plaintiffs allege that SUTTER SOLANO did precisely the opposite of assuming responsibility for Decedent’s needs where its staff marked him for referral to social services. (1AC at ¶ 25.)

Even acknowledging the allegations of Decedent’s altered mental state the fact remains that SUTTER SOLANO did not care for Decedent’s basic needs in any but the most minimal and incidental ways for any but the most fleeting and insignificant time.

Plaintiffs do not state a cause of action for dependent adult neglect on account of failure to state a caretaking or custodial relationship.

Leave to Amend. Leave to amend is appropriate where pleading deficiencies are amenable to correction. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)

It is the pleading party’s burden to demonstrate a possibility that identified defects could be corrected by amendment. (Murphy v. Twitter, Inc. (2018) 60 Cal.App.5th 12, 42.)

Plaintiffs do not offer a directed argument as to amendment, only requesting leave to amend without demonstration of what additional facts they could allege that would cure identified defects.

Conclusion. SUTTER SOLANO’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action in the first amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

ELAINE SCIACCA and KK&G INC. vs. AHMED ALSHERIF