Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP (July 22, 2026, B341254) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2026 WL 2137687]
Betsy Jentz sued a skilled nursing facility (SNF) and its operator for elder abuse and negligence. She alleged that it failed to implement a care plan to prevent her from falling despite knowing her high risk for falls. Jentz also alleged that SNF failed to provide her with adequate supervision, monitoring and assistance, and that she suffered injuries from falls, pressure sores, infection, and poor nutrition, hydration, and hygiene. The jury awarded Jentz $1.8 million in noneconomic damages and almost $500,000 in past economic damages. The SNF moved for posttrial relief, arguing that MICRA limited Jentz’s noneconomic damage award to $250,000. The trial court conditionally granted the SNF’s motion for new trial on noneconomic damages unless Jentz accepted a reduced $250,000 award. Both sides appealed after a mixed decision on the post-trial motions.
The Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that MICRA did not limit Jentz’s noneconomic damages. Relying on Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 364, the court explained that when a SNF acts as a health care provider, its errors and omissions constitute professional negligence covered by MICRA; other acts and omissions related to custodial duties—such as providing personal hygiene, food, hydration, and clothing—are not covered by MICRA. The court rejected the SNF’s argument that the gravamen of Jentz’s claim was professional negligence in making a medical fall-risk assessment and fall avoidance plans. According to the court, Jentz alleged the SNF had correctly recommended interventions, but failed to properly implement them by inadequately supervising and assisting her daily activities, which were custodial tasks. Because Jentz’s claims were based on the SNF’s failure to fulfill its custodial and caregiving duties, rather than any failure to provide medical services, the MICRA cap did not apply.
