What is the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA)?

Useful Rulings on Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA)

Recent Rulings on Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA)

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.) was enacted to provide for the “private, civil enforcement of laws against elder abuse and neglect” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33 [82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610, 971 P.2d 986]). The statutory provisions are not limited to mentally incompetent or physically impaired elders, or persons of limited financial means. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15600, 15610.27, 15610.30.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STACY MURRY ET AL. VS STACIE'S CHALET STOCKTON ET AL.

(McKell, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at 1469; citations omitted. 1st Cause of Action – Elder Abuse. Welf. & Inst. Code §15600, et seq., sets forth the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (hereinafter “the Act” or “Elder Abuse Act”). Welf. & Inst.

  • Hearing

VERA MAE RHYMES VS SHLOMO RECHNITZ , ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges four causes of action: (1) elder abuse and neglect under the Elder Adult and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.; (2) negligent hiring and supervision; (3) violation of resident rights under Health & Safety Code § 1430; and (4) fraudulent concealment. Rockport and Alameda filed a demurrer and motion to strike on July 14, 2020. DEMURRER Rockport and Alameda demur to all causes of action for insufficient facts.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

To establish neglect under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, a plaintiff must prove the following: that the defendant's employee had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with him involving ongoing responsibility for his basic needs; the plaintiff was 65 or older or a dependent adult while in the defendant's employee's care or custody; the defendant's employee failed to use the degree of care reasonable in providing for plaintiff's basic needs, including providing medical

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LINLEY V. HORIZON HEALTH AND SUB-ACUTE, LLC

Courts have also found that regulations governing residential care facilities for the elderly impose duties of care, the breach of which can constitute elder abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”). (Norman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1246 [citing Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.57, subd. (a)(1)]; Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VERJINEH MEHRABIANS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The second agreement applies to any and all claims other than medical malpractice as follows: The parties understand that, except as provided below, any claim other than a claim for medical malpractice, arising out of the provision of services by the Facility, the admission agreement, the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and enforcement thereof, or which allege violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, or the Unfair Competition Act, or which seek an award of

  • Hearing

ALVARO GARCIA VS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP, ET AL.

., ¶35) and that (4) Plaintiff was in the “care and/or custody” of Defendants within the meaning of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”) and were providing services to Plaintiff with respect to his dependencies and disability. (Id., ¶36.) Plaintiff, then, has adequately alleged his standing as a “dependent adult.” Defendants do not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations for purposes of Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.23, subdivision (b).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LORETA S TUPARAN VS GOLDEN CROSS HEALTH CARE ET AL

Third Cause of Action (Elder Abuse) – Under the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA"), Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq., a dependent adult is defined as any person residing in California between 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his ability to carry out normal activities, protect his rights, or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.23, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

VALERIE JIMENEZ, ET AL. VS MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., ET AL.

., and Doe and manufacturer defendants, including: (1) violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act; (2) strict liability – failure to warn; (3) breach of fiduciary duty – fraud by concealment; (4) professional negligence (medical malpractice); (5) wrongful death; and (6) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARMON V. HORIZON HEALTH & SUBACUTE CENTER

First Cause of Action—Elder Abuse/Neglect Elder abuse claims are based upon the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“Elder Abuse Act”) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.), making an elder abuse cause of action a statutory claim, which must be plead with particularity. (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KNEIFL, ET AL. V. FOOTHILL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Defendants generally demurrer to the first and third causes of action for elder abuse/neglect and willful misconduct. Defendants also specially demurrer for uncertainty to the third cause of action. First Cause of Action for Violation of Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act The first cause of action is for elder abuse/neglect.

  • Hearing

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL. VS VALERIE LUPIN

In her Statement of Claim, Respondent asserted claims based upon alleged breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the California Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. On or about September 24, 2018, petitioner JPMS signed a Uniform Submission Agreement consenting to arbitration before FINRA. Pet. ¶ 4, Ex. B.

  • Hearing

PHAIROH PROMSIRI, ET AL. VS INLAND VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC

First Cause of Action (i.e., Elder Abuse and Neglect [Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600, et seq.]) The elements of a cause of action for elder abuse and neglect are determined by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADCPA”). (Welf & Inst. Code § 15600; Intrieri v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 82.)

  • Hearing

MIANO VS. PENLEY HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF CRAIG MIANO BY VICTORIA PENLEY

The purpose of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Elder Abuse Act”) is “to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33.) Financial abuse occurs when a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. (emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

VERJINEH MEHRABIANS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The second agreement applies to any and all claims other than medical malpractice as follows: The parties understand that, except as provided below, any claim other than a claim for medical malpractice, arising out of the provision of services by the Facility, the admission agreement, the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and enforcement thereof, or which allege violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, or the Unfair Competition Act, or which seek an award of

  • Hearing

DAWN JOYNER VS LA BREA REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC , ET AL.

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the arbitration agreement limits her recovery under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act by stating that “California Code of Civil Procedure § 667.7 and Civil Code §§3333.1-3333.2 applies to any and all claims arising out of the care, treatment and services provided to the Resident by the Facility.” (Opposition at p. 19.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADDIRAHMAN VS SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

On the grounds Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged malice/oppression under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the demurrers are sustained with leave to amend the first cause of action. Plaintiffs assert Defendants' conduct was reckless and therefore within the scope of the Act. Plaintiffs may base their claims on allegations of recklessness. (W&I Code § 15657.) However, their pleading does not sufficiently allege specific facts of recklessness on the part of either AMR or Myers.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADDIRAHMAN VS SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

On the grounds Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged malice/oppression under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the demurrers are sustained with leave to amend the first cause of action. Plaintiffs assert Defendants' conduct was reckless and therefore within the scope of the Act. Plaintiffs may base their claims on allegations of recklessness. (W&I Code § 15657.) However, their pleading does not sufficiently allege specific facts of recklessness on the part of either AMR or Myers.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAREN HORWITZ, ET AL. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , ET AL.

Plaintiffs argue that they seek discovery as to chronic understaffing which would be relevant to their Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act cause of action. (See Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 [allegations of knowing chronic understaffing in violation of staffing regulation suggests recklessness].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN ZHENG VS SALLY ING, ET AL.

Zheng demurs to the Fourth Cause of Action in the XC, Financial Elder Abuse. Fourth Cause of Action – Financial Elder Abuse The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the “Act”) “provides that ‘financial abuse’ of an elder occurs when ‘a person or entity [¶] ... [t]akes ... [¶] ... [or] [a]ssists in taking ... real or personal property of an elder ... for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both’ (§ 15610.30, subd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRAUN VS. STEPHENS MD

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA") "does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient." (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152.) The California Supreme Court determined the EADACPA does not "flatly preclude the statute's applicability to outpatient medical treatment." (Id. at 156.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRAUN VS. STEPHENS MD

The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ("EADACPA") "does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient." (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152.) The California Supreme Court determined the EADACPA does not "flatly preclude the statute's applicability to outpatient medical treatment." (Id. at 156.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSSANA YAN, ET AL. VS RAMON HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., A FOREIGN ENTITY,, ET AL.

Merits Second Cause of Action – Elder Abuse and Neglect – Under the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”), Welf. & Inst. Code §15600 et seq., a dependent adult is defined as any person residing in California between 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his ability to carry out normal activities, protect his rights, or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15610.23, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAROLD WOFFORD, BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CYNTHIA ROBINSON VS AG LYNWOOD LLC, ET AL.

The second arbitration agreement is substantially similar with the exception of the first paragraph’s first sentence, which reads: The parties understand that, except as provided below, any claim other than a claim for medical malpractice, arising out of the provision of services by the Facility, the admission agreement, the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and enforcement thereof, or which allege violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, or the Unfair Competition

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARY NELSON VS CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, L.P., ET AL.

Issue No. 4 (“Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense has no merit and should be summarily adjudicated alleging that as it pertains to the PLAINTIFF’S cause of action alleging violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, such damages are governed by California Civil Code § 3333.1.”)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.