Jarman v. HCR Manorcare CA4/3

Filed 11/17/20 Jarman v. HCR Manorcare CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JANICE JARMAN, as Successor in Interest, etc., G051086 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. RIC10007764) v. OPINION HCR MANORCARE, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Mac R. Fisher and Phrasel L. Shelton (retired judge of the Riverside Super.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Judges. Remanded with directions.

Lanzone Morgan, Anthony C. Lanzone, Steffi A. Jose, Anna H. Cronk, Travis K. Siegel; Downey Brand and Jay-Allen Eisen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Petrullo, John Patrick Petrullo, Isaiah Costas; Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, Barry S. Landsburg and Joanna S. McCallum for Defendants and Appellants. * * *

John Jarman (and later his daughter, Janice Jarman, as successor in interest) (Jarman) sued HCR ManorCare, Inc. and Manor Care of Hemet, CA, LLC (ManorCare), the owners and operators of a nursing home, for violations of Health and Safety Code section 1430 (section 1430), elder abuse, and negligence. The jury returned a special verdict finding ManorCare committed 382 violations of Jarman’s rights based on the care he received, and that its conduct was negligent. The jury awarded Jarman $95,500 in statutory damage ($250 per violation pursuant to section 1430) plus $100,000 in damages for the negligence. The jury also made a finding that ManorCare had acted with malice, oppression or fraud. The trial court later granted ManorCare’s motion to strike the punitive damage claim. The total judgment in favor of Jarman was for $195,500 plus $368,755 in attorney fees. As relevant here, in his appeal to this court (Jarman v. HCR ManorCare, Inc. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 807, 816-817, rev’d. by Jarman v. HCR ManorCare, Inc. 1 (2020) 10 Cal.5th 375, 380), Jarman argued the order striking punitive damages should be reversed. ManorCare also appealed, arguing that allowing the jury to award separate statutory damages for each violation of section 1430 was improper. We agreed with Jarman and disagreed with ManorCare. ManorCare sought review in the California Supreme Court, which was granted. On August 17, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing this court’s judgment and remanded the matter to this court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. (Jarman v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., supra, 10 Cal.5th 375.) In its opinion, the Court addressed the section 1430 issue and determined the statutory cap of $500 applies per action, not per violation. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court did not reach the issue of punitive damages. (Id. at p. 393, fn. 8.)