Keating II v. Loma Linda University Medical Cntr., et al

31. Keating II v. Loma Linda University Medical Cntr., et al, Case No. CIVSB2507211 Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint 8/28/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Ruling

The Court would OVERRULE the demurrer as to dependent adult abuse by neglect (Cause 1). A responsive pleading will be filed within thirty (30) days.

Case Summary

This is, in essence, a medical negligence case. Plaintiff alleges he is a “dependent adult” within the meaning of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23. He further alleges a host of medical maladies. He was admitted to Loma Linda University Medical Center (Loma Linda) on June 7, 2024, after abdominal pain and nausea. He remained hospitalized until June 25, 2024, but from June 12th through June 24th, Loma Linda purported did not provide him with turning and repositioning care. Plaintiff alleges that, instead, Loma Linda falsely documented that he “refused” turning and repositioning services.

He further alleges that Loma Linda withheld timely responses from call button requests and that he developed significant further medical concerns as a result. As a result, he filed suit on March 13, 2025. On December 21, 2025, he filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging (1) dependent adult abuse by neglect and (2) negligence.

Statement of the Law

A demurrer challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading, which includes incorporated exhibits, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) A demurrer predicated on insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10(e), should be granted only when the facts alleged on the face of the complaint fails to state any valid claim entitled to the plaintiff. (Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 572; New Livable California v. Assoc. of Bay Area Governments (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 709, 714.)

Analysis

Here, Defendant Loma Linda demurrers to the first cause of action for “Dependent Adult Abuse by Neglect” as pleaded by Plaintiff in his First Amended Complaint (FAC). In sum, Loma Linda argues that the facts alleged in support of the cause are not sufficiently egregious to constitute neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA or the Elder Abuse Act). Loma Linda argues that the neglect which is actionable under the EADACPA must be so egregious in nature that it constitutes true abuse in the plain meaning of that term.

The EADACPA defines “neglect” as the negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57(a)(1)-(2).) Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57, subdivision (b) states: “Neglect includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: [¶] (1) Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter. [¶] (2) Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs . . . . [¶] (3) Failure to protect from health and safety hazards.

2