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.

[¶] (4) Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration. [¶] (5) Substantial inability or failure of an elder or dependent adult to manage their own finances. [¶] (6) Failure of an elder or dependent adult to satisfy any of the needs specified in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, for themselves as a result of poor cognitive functioning, mental limitation, substance abuse, or chronic poor health.”

In Covenant Care the Supreme Court held that elder dependent abuse “covers an area of misconduct distinct from ‘professional negligence’” and that “the statutory definition of ‘neglect’ speaks not of the undertaking of medical services, but of the failure to provide medical care.” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783.) Covenant Care broadly instructs, “no such overlap occurs in the Elder Abuse Act context, where the Legislature expressly excluded ordinary negligence claims from treatment under the Act.” (See id. at 788-789.) The Covenant Care court made clear that the Elder Abuse Act has no application to acts other than those of egregious abuse.

Under the Elder Abuse Act, “a plaintiff who proves ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that a defendant is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or financial abuse (as these terms are defined in the Act), and that defendant has been guilty of ‘recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice’ in the commission of such abuse, may recover attorney fees and costs.” (Covenant Care, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 779 [emphasis].) “Recklessness, unlike negligence, involves more than ‘inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions’ but rather rises to the level of a ‘conscious choice of a course of action . . . with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.’” (Delaney v.

Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.) Oppression, fraud and malice ‘involve “intentional,” “willful,” or “conscious” wrongdoing of a “despicable” or “injurious” nature.’ [Citation.]” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 405.)

The determination of whether an entity is a care custodian under the EADACPA is considered on a caseby-case basis as to whether the facts show a person has assumed significant responsibility for attending to one or more of the basic needs of the elder or dependent adult that an able-bodied and fully competent adult would ordinarily be capable of managing without assistance. (Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1124.) The key to this analysis is whether the plaintiff relied on the defendants in any way distinct from an able-bodied and fully competent adult. (Ibid. at p. 1125.)

Here, the FAC alleges Plaintiff has a host of significant medical maladies. (FAC, ¶2.) As a result, Plaintiff could not turn or reposition himself in bed, cannot transfer himself, and is wholly dependent on caregivers for all activities of daily living. (FAC, ¶2.) The FAC further alleges that because of Plaintiff’s medical conditions, he was at risk of developing ulcers. (FAC, ¶42.) Loma Linda is alleged to have been aware of Plaintiff’s conditions. (FAC, ¶115.) Yet, no plan was made to not provide Plaintiff with turning and repositioning care. (FAC, ¶41.)

Plaintiff has therefore alleged sufficiently.

*** *** ***

32. Wallace v. Superior Court of Calif., Co. of Orange, Case No. 30-2026-01546133-CU-MC-NJC Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Answer 8/28/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Ruling

The Court would construe the motion to strike the first through eighth affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In that light, the Court would DENY the

3