February 3, 2022

Oroville Hospital v. Superior Court (Jan. 26, 2022, C090570)

Prior to her death, the decedent, plaintiffs’ mother and grandmother, was entirely dependent on her granddaughter for her basic care needs. Defendants provided decedent in-home nursing services to tend to a wound on 10 occasions. Decedent’s wound worsened, she was hospitalized, and she ultimately died. Plaintiffs sued the in-home nurses for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Defendants moved for summary adjudication, arguing that they did not have a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with the decedent, a prerequisite for recovery under the Act. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed.

In one of the first appellate decisions to interpret and apply the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to show the existence of a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship. The court explained that the provision of medical care to an adult, who was dependent on others as a general matter, is not itself sufficient to create a caretaker relationship. Instead, the defendant must assume significant responsibility of one or more basic needs that a competent adult could manage without assistance. Here, medically supervised wound care provided on an intermittent basis in the decedent’s home did not constitute a “basic need” of the decedent. Thus, the specific responsibilities assumed by the defendants did not give rise to a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, especially where decedent’s granddaughter had been providing all basic care needs.