Preview
1 GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
Stephen M. Garcia, State Bar No. 123338
2 edocs@lawgarcia.com
180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1100
3 Long Beach, California 90802
Telephone: (562) 216-5270
4 Facsimile: (562) 216-5271
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11 WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI, CASE NO.
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 vs. 1) Wrongful Death
14 NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.;
NARINDER KUMAR; and DOES 1-250,
15 inclusive,
16 Defendants.
17
IVAN MATSUI,
18
Nominal Defendant.
19
20
COME NOW Plaintiffs WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI and alleges upon
21
information and belief as follows:
22
THE PARTIES
23
1. Plaintiffs WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI (hereinafter sometimes referred
24
to as “PLAINTIFFS”) were at all times relevant hereto residents of the State of California.
25
PLAINTIFFS brings their wrongful death claims individually as heirs of Alice Matsui
26
(“DECEDENT”).
27
2. IVAN MATSUI is also a heir of DECEDENT. He is being named as a nominal
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 defendant in accordance with Gonzalez v. S. California Edison Co. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 485.
2 3. Defendants NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC., which lists a principal address of
3 20700 Northridge Road, Chatsworth, California 91311 on the Statement of Information filed with
4 the California Secretary of State, and DOES 1-50 (which hereinafter are sometimes referred to as
5 the “FACILITY”), were at all relevant times in the business of providing custodial care as a
6 Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, and were subject to the requirements of state law regarding
7 the operation of a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (“RCFE”) in the State of California.
8 4. Defendants NARINDER KUMAR and DOES 51-100 (hereinafter referred to as the
9 “MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS”) owned, operated, managed and/or controlled the operations
10 of the FACILITY, and in fact is the only listed officer and director of NANDINI ASSISTED
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11 LIVING, INC. listed with the Secretary of State of California. (Hereinafter the FACILITY and the
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12 MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS shall sometimes be referred to collectively as
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 “DEFENDANTS”).
14 5. The DEFENDANTS, by and through the corporate officers and directors including,
15 David Aguiniga (Administrator); Monica Reyes (Administrator); NARINDER KUMAR (Director,
16 Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING,
17 INC.); and others presently unknown to DECEDENT and according to proof at time of trial, ratified
18 the conduct of their co-defendants and the FACILITY, in that they were aware of the understaffing
19 of the FACILITY, in both number and training, the relationship between understaffing and sub-
20 standard provision of care to patients of the FACILITY, including DECEDENT, the causal
21 relationship between understaffing and the increased likelihood of harm to residents resulting from
22 such understaffing, and the FACILITY’S history of being issued deficiencies by the State of
23 California’s Department of Social Services. That notwithstanding this knowledge, these officers,
24 directors, and/or managing agents meaningfully disregarded this advance knowledge even though
25 they knew the understaffing could, would and did lead to unnecessary injuries to residents of their
26 FACILITY, including DECEDENT.
27 6. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued
28 herein as DOES 1 through 250, and for that reason have sued such Defendants by fictitious names.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 PLAINTIFFS will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when
2 their identities are ascertained.
3 7. That, based upon information and belief, DOES 101 through 125 were members of
4 the FACILITY Governing Body responsible for the creation and implementation of policies and
5 procedures for the operation of the FACILITY pursuant to 22 C.C.R. §87205 et seq. That these
6 members, as executives, managing agents and/or owners of the FACILITY, were focused on
7 unlawfully increasing the earnings in the operation of DEFENDANTS’ businesses as opposed to
8 providing the legally mandated minimum care to be provided to elderly and/or infirm residents in
9 their RCFEs, including DECEDENT. That the focus of these individuals on their own attainment of
10 profit played a part in the underfunding and understaffing of the FACILITY which led to the
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11 FACILITY violating applicable rules, laws, regulations, and codes and led to the injuries to
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12 DECEDENT as alleged herein.
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 8. At all relevant times, the DEFENDANTS, and each of their tortious acts and
14 omissions, as alleged herein, were done in concert with one another in furtherance of their common
15 design and agreement to accomplish a particular result, namely maximizing profits from the
16 operation of the FACILITY by underfunding and understaffing the FACILITY. Moreover, the
17 DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other in accomplishing the acts and omissions alleged
18 herein. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts §876 (1979)).
19 9. At all relevant times, the DEFENDANTS, by their acts and omissions as alleged
20 herein, operated pursuant to an agreement, with a common purpose and community of interest, with
21 an equal right of control, and subject to participation in profits and losses, as further alleged herein,
22 such that they operated a joint enterprise or joint venture, subjecting each of them to liability for the
23 acts and omissions of each other.
24 10. Here the DEFENDANTS had such unity of interest and ownership that the legal
25 separateness of the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and the FACILITY did not exist such that
26 the observance of the fiction of separate existence would under the circumstance promote fraud or
27 injustice.
28 11. Specifically, as to the alter ego, and without limiting the generality of that alleged
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 above, MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.:
2 (1) commingled of funds and other assets;
3 (2) failed to segregate funds of the separate entities, and the unauthorized
diversion of corporate funds or assets to other than corporate uses;
4
5 (3) treated the assets of the FACILITY as their own;
6 (4) failed to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records of the FACILITY;
7 (5) sole ownership of all of the stock in a corporation by one individual or the
members of a family;
8
(6) failed to adequately capitalize the FACILITY;
9
(7) used the FACILITY as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single
10 venture or the business of themselves;
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11
(8) the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm’s length
relationships among related entities;
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 (9) the diversion of assets from the FACILITY by or to one another to the
detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets and liabilities between
14 entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another;
15
12. Specifically, as a single enterprise, and without limiting the generality of that alleged
16
above, MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.:
17
(1) participated in a common venture or in a similar or functionally reciprocal
18 business (e.g., one corporation builds houses upon land owned by the other);
19 (2) identical equitable ownership;
20 (3) common directors, officers and employees;
21 (4) same business location, telephone numbers and e-mail systems;
22 (5) pooling of assets and revenues, or use of one corporation's financial
resources to pay or guaranty the other's obligations (especially if the other
23 corporation is undercapitalized); and
24 (6) the corporations tend to benefit jointly from transactions entered into by one
of them.
25
13. At all relevant times, DECEDENT was over the age of 65 and thus was an “elder”
26
as that term is defined in the Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.27.
27
14. That the DEFENDANTS “neglected” DECEDENT as that term is defined in Welfare
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 & Institutions Code §15610.57 in that the DEFENDANTS themselves, as well as their employees,
2 failed to exercise the degree of care that reasonable persons in a like position would exercise as is
3 more fully alleged herein.
4 15. In or about October 2022, DECEDENT was admitted to the FACILITY as a 90 year
5 old woman who was no longer able to walk and required assistance with all of her activities of daily
6 living.
7 16. Upon DECEDENT’s admission to the FACILITY, DEFENDANTS were well aware
8 that DECEDENT suffered from general weakness and required assistance with all of her activities
9 of daily living. Therefore, DECEDENT required special care and assistance including 24-hour
10 supervision and monitoring, ongoing attention and care with respect to her oxygen levels, assistance
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11 and monitoring with feeding, assistance and monitoring with DECEDENT’S other activities of daily
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12 living. That notwithstanding this knowledge, and notwithstanding a full knowledge that the failure
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 to create and implement proper care plans to prevent DECEDENT from suffering from low oxygen
14 related incidents, created a high probability that DECEDENT would suffer low oxygen and resulting
15 injury, DEFENDANTS knowingly disregarded this risk and failed to adequately assess, generate
16 and implement an adequate plan of care for DECEDENT and to implement adequate preventive
17 measures to ensure DECEDENT received the necessary level of oxygen. That in so doing,
18 DEFENDANTS failed to meet DECEDENT’S needs and failed to comply with the rules, laws and
19 regulations governing their FACILITY. Moreover, DEFENDANTS knowingly exposed
20 DECEDENT to extreme health and safety hazards.
21 17. The DEFENDANTS were well aware that if they failed to provide DECEDENT with
22 the aforementioned care, supervision, and monitoring, there was a high probability that
23 DECEDENT would suffer injury. That DEFENDANTS consciously disregarded this risk and failed
24 to provide DECEDENT with the aforementioned required care, leading directly to DECEDENT’s
25 injuries.
26 18. It is a statistical fact that elders such as DECEDENT suffering from low oxygen
27 levels are at high risk of suffering brain damage and resulting injury. Thus, Residential Care
28 Facilities for the Elderly such as the FACILITY are to not only conduct assessments of high risk
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 residents such as DECEDENT, but also are to update the assessments as frequently as necessary to
2 determine the specific interventions that should be put in place to prevent a resident such as
3 DECEDENT from suffering incident due to insufficient oxygen. These interventions include such
4 innocuous interventions as utilizing and monitoring the resident’s oxygen tank or oxygen
5 concentrator machine to prevent one from suffering dangerous low levels of oxygen. The
6 FACILITY did not provide any such services or interventions to DECEDENT notwithstanding that
7 he required such services.
8 19. Before and during the residency of DECEDENT at the FACILITY, the
9 DEFENDANTS were aware that DECEDENT was suffering conditions which precluded
10 DECEDENT’s lawful admission into the DEFENDANTS’ RCFE. The DEFENDANTS were aware
TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271
G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E
11 that DECEDENT required more care and supervision than that which the FACILITY could or would
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
12 provide as the direct result of insufficiency of staff, in both number and training, at the FACILITY
180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100
13 and the fact that the non-medical FACILITY was precluded by law from providing the care
14 DECEDENT required and deserved.
15 20. The DEFENDANTS were aware, upon admission and/or during the residency of
16 DECEDENT that DECEDENT required a higher level of care and care interventions to prevent
17 injury to DECEDENT than the FACILITY would, or could lawfully provide. And yet so as to
18 unlawfully promote profits the DEFENDANTS admitted and retained DECEDENT as a resident of
19 the FACILITY even though the DEFENDANTS were fully aware that in so doing they exposed
20 DECEDENT to extreme health and safety hazards. DEFENDANTS retained DECEDENT as a
21 resident even though they had not properly trained their staff as to oxygen administration and
22 monitoring of a resident who requires oxygen and failed to provide appropriate staff to prevent
23 DECEDENT from suffering insufficient levels of oxygen.
24 21. That as a result of the DEFENDANTS’ failure to provide sufficient staff in both
25 number and training to meet DECEDENT’s needs, as identified by the FACILITY through its
26 assessments and other devices, DECEDENT was forced to suffer unjustifiable pain and suffering
27 through the deprivation of required medical and custodial care. That this unjustifiable pain and
28 suffering was the result of DEFENDANTS’ failure to provide sufficient staff, in both number and
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx
1 training, so as to be able to provide residents, including DECEDENT, with their required medical
2 and custodial care. That because of the failure of the DEFENDANTS to provide the services
3 required under state rules, laws and regulations, while a resident at the FACILITY, DECEDENT
Preview
1 GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE Stephen M. Garcia, State Bar No. 123338 2 edocs@lawgarcia.com 180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1100 3 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-5270 4 Facsimile: (562) 216-5271 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI, CASE NO. LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 vs. 1) Wrongful Death 14 NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.; NARINDER KUMAR; and DOES 1-250, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 IVAN MATSUI, 18 Nominal Defendant. 19 20 COME NOW Plaintiffs WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI and alleges upon 21 information and belief as follows: 22 THE PARTIES 23 1. Plaintiffs WARREN MATSUI and PAUL MATSUI (hereinafter sometimes referred 24 to as “PLAINTIFFS”) were at all times relevant hereto residents of the State of California. 25 PLAINTIFFS brings their wrongful death claims individually as heirs of Alice Matsui 26 (“DECEDENT”). 27 2. IVAN MATSUI is also a heir of DECEDENT. He is being named as a nominal 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 defendant in accordance with Gonzalez v. S. California Edison Co. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 485. 2 3. Defendants NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC., which lists a principal address of 3 20700 Northridge Road, Chatsworth, California 91311 on the Statement of Information filed with 4 the California Secretary of State, and DOES 1-50 (which hereinafter are sometimes referred to as 5 the “FACILITY”), were at all relevant times in the business of providing custodial care as a 6 Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, and were subject to the requirements of state law regarding 7 the operation of a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (“RCFE”) in the State of California. 8 4. Defendants NARINDER KUMAR and DOES 51-100 (hereinafter referred to as the 9 “MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS”) owned, operated, managed and/or controlled the operations 10 of the FACILITY, and in fact is the only listed officer and director of NANDINI ASSISTED TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 LIVING, INC. listed with the Secretary of State of California. (Hereinafter the FACILITY and the LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS shall sometimes be referred to collectively as 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 “DEFENDANTS”). 14 5. The DEFENDANTS, by and through the corporate officers and directors including, 15 David Aguiniga (Administrator); Monica Reyes (Administrator); NARINDER KUMAR (Director, 16 Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, 17 INC.); and others presently unknown to DECEDENT and according to proof at time of trial, ratified 18 the conduct of their co-defendants and the FACILITY, in that they were aware of the understaffing 19 of the FACILITY, in both number and training, the relationship between understaffing and sub- 20 standard provision of care to patients of the FACILITY, including DECEDENT, the causal 21 relationship between understaffing and the increased likelihood of harm to residents resulting from 22 such understaffing, and the FACILITY’S history of being issued deficiencies by the State of 23 California’s Department of Social Services. That notwithstanding this knowledge, these officers, 24 directors, and/or managing agents meaningfully disregarded this advance knowledge even though 25 they knew the understaffing could, would and did lead to unnecessary injuries to residents of their 26 FACILITY, including DECEDENT. 27 6. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued 28 herein as DOES 1 through 250, and for that reason have sued such Defendants by fictitious names. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 PLAINTIFFS will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when 2 their identities are ascertained. 3 7. That, based upon information and belief, DOES 101 through 125 were members of 4 the FACILITY Governing Body responsible for the creation and implementation of policies and 5 procedures for the operation of the FACILITY pursuant to 22 C.C.R. §87205 et seq. That these 6 members, as executives, managing agents and/or owners of the FACILITY, were focused on 7 unlawfully increasing the earnings in the operation of DEFENDANTS’ businesses as opposed to 8 providing the legally mandated minimum care to be provided to elderly and/or infirm residents in 9 their RCFEs, including DECEDENT. That the focus of these individuals on their own attainment of 10 profit played a part in the underfunding and understaffing of the FACILITY which led to the TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 FACILITY violating applicable rules, laws, regulations, and codes and led to the injuries to LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 DECEDENT as alleged herein. 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 8. At all relevant times, the DEFENDANTS, and each of their tortious acts and 14 omissions, as alleged herein, were done in concert with one another in furtherance of their common 15 design and agreement to accomplish a particular result, namely maximizing profits from the 16 operation of the FACILITY by underfunding and understaffing the FACILITY. Moreover, the 17 DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other in accomplishing the acts and omissions alleged 18 herein. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts §876 (1979)). 19 9. At all relevant times, the DEFENDANTS, by their acts and omissions as alleged 20 herein, operated pursuant to an agreement, with a common purpose and community of interest, with 21 an equal right of control, and subject to participation in profits and losses, as further alleged herein, 22 such that they operated a joint enterprise or joint venture, subjecting each of them to liability for the 23 acts and omissions of each other. 24 10. Here the DEFENDANTS had such unity of interest and ownership that the legal 25 separateness of the MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and the FACILITY did not exist such that 26 the observance of the fiction of separate existence would under the circumstance promote fraud or 27 injustice. 28 11. Specifically, as to the alter ego, and without limiting the generality of that alleged 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 above, MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.: 2 (1) commingled of funds and other assets; 3 (2) failed to segregate funds of the separate entities, and the unauthorized diversion of corporate funds or assets to other than corporate uses; 4 5 (3) treated the assets of the FACILITY as their own; 6 (4) failed to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records of the FACILITY; 7 (5) sole ownership of all of the stock in a corporation by one individual or the members of a family; 8 (6) failed to adequately capitalize the FACILITY; 9 (7) used the FACILITY as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single 10 venture or the business of themselves; TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 (8) the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm’s length relationships among related entities; LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 (9) the diversion of assets from the FACILITY by or to one another to the detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets and liabilities between 14 entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another; 15 12. Specifically, as a single enterprise, and without limiting the generality of that alleged 16 above, MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and NANDINI ASSISTED LIVING, INC.: 17 (1) participated in a common venture or in a similar or functionally reciprocal 18 business (e.g., one corporation builds houses upon land owned by the other); 19 (2) identical equitable ownership; 20 (3) common directors, officers and employees; 21 (4) same business location, telephone numbers and e-mail systems; 22 (5) pooling of assets and revenues, or use of one corporation's financial resources to pay or guaranty the other's obligations (especially if the other 23 corporation is undercapitalized); and 24 (6) the corporations tend to benefit jointly from transactions entered into by one of them. 25 13. At all relevant times, DECEDENT was over the age of 65 and thus was an “elder” 26 as that term is defined in the Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.27. 27 14. That the DEFENDANTS “neglected” DECEDENT as that term is defined in Welfare 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 & Institutions Code §15610.57 in that the DEFENDANTS themselves, as well as their employees, 2 failed to exercise the degree of care that reasonable persons in a like position would exercise as is 3 more fully alleged herein. 4 15. In or about October 2022, DECEDENT was admitted to the FACILITY as a 90 year 5 old woman who was no longer able to walk and required assistance with all of her activities of daily 6 living. 7 16. Upon DECEDENT’s admission to the FACILITY, DEFENDANTS were well aware 8 that DECEDENT suffered from general weakness and required assistance with all of her activities 9 of daily living. Therefore, DECEDENT required special care and assistance including 24-hour 10 supervision and monitoring, ongoing attention and care with respect to her oxygen levels, assistance TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 and monitoring with feeding, assistance and monitoring with DECEDENT’S other activities of daily LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 living. That notwithstanding this knowledge, and notwithstanding a full knowledge that the failure 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 to create and implement proper care plans to prevent DECEDENT from suffering from low oxygen 14 related incidents, created a high probability that DECEDENT would suffer low oxygen and resulting 15 injury, DEFENDANTS knowingly disregarded this risk and failed to adequately assess, generate 16 and implement an adequate plan of care for DECEDENT and to implement adequate preventive 17 measures to ensure DECEDENT received the necessary level of oxygen. That in so doing, 18 DEFENDANTS failed to meet DECEDENT’S needs and failed to comply with the rules, laws and 19 regulations governing their FACILITY. Moreover, DEFENDANTS knowingly exposed 20 DECEDENT to extreme health and safety hazards. 21 17. The DEFENDANTS were well aware that if they failed to provide DECEDENT with 22 the aforementioned care, supervision, and monitoring, there was a high probability that 23 DECEDENT would suffer injury. That DEFENDANTS consciously disregarded this risk and failed 24 to provide DECEDENT with the aforementioned required care, leading directly to DECEDENT’s 25 injuries. 26 18. It is a statistical fact that elders such as DECEDENT suffering from low oxygen 27 levels are at high risk of suffering brain damage and resulting injury. Thus, Residential Care 28 Facilities for the Elderly such as the FACILITY are to not only conduct assessments of high risk 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 residents such as DECEDENT, but also are to update the assessments as frequently as necessary to 2 determine the specific interventions that should be put in place to prevent a resident such as 3 DECEDENT from suffering incident due to insufficient oxygen. These interventions include such 4 innocuous interventions as utilizing and monitoring the resident’s oxygen tank or oxygen 5 concentrator machine to prevent one from suffering dangerous low levels of oxygen. The 6 FACILITY did not provide any such services or interventions to DECEDENT notwithstanding that 7 he required such services. 8 19. Before and during the residency of DECEDENT at the FACILITY, the 9 DEFENDANTS were aware that DECEDENT was suffering conditions which precluded 10 DECEDENT’s lawful admission into the DEFENDANTS’ RCFE. The DEFENDANTS were aware TELEPHONE (562) 216-5270 • FACSIMILE (562) 216-5271 G AR C I A & A R TI GLI ER E 11 that DECEDENT required more care and supervision than that which the FACILITY could or would LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 12 provide as the direct result of insufficiency of staff, in both number and training, at the FACILITY 180 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1100 13 and the fact that the non-medical FACILITY was precluded by law from providing the care 14 DECEDENT required and deserved. 15 20. The DEFENDANTS were aware, upon admission and/or during the residency of 16 DECEDENT that DECEDENT required a higher level of care and care interventions to prevent 17 injury to DECEDENT than the FACILITY would, or could lawfully provide. And yet so as to 18 unlawfully promote profits the DEFENDANTS admitted and retained DECEDENT as a resident of 19 the FACILITY even though the DEFENDANTS were fully aware that in so doing they exposed 20 DECEDENT to extreme health and safety hazards. DEFENDANTS retained DECEDENT as a 21 resident even though they had not properly trained their staff as to oxygen administration and 22 monitoring of a resident who requires oxygen and failed to provide appropriate staff to prevent 23 DECEDENT from suffering insufficient levels of oxygen. 24 21. That as a result of the DEFENDANTS’ failure to provide sufficient staff in both 25 number and training to meet DECEDENT’s needs, as identified by the FACILITY through its 26 assessments and other devices, DECEDENT was forced to suffer unjustifiable pain and suffering 27 through the deprivation of required medical and custodial care. That this unjustifiable pain and 28 suffering was the result of DEFENDANTS’ failure to provide sufficient staff, in both number and 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M:\Matsui, Warren (24-009-WD) Matsui WD\Pleadings\Complaint.WD.docx 1 training, so as to be able to provide residents, including DECEDENT, with their required medical 2 and custodial care. That because of the failure of the DEFENDANTS to provide the services 3 required under state rules, laws and regulations, while a resident at the FACILITY, DECEDENT