San Diego’s City Attorney sued Scripps Health under the UCL, alleging that Scripps acted unlawfully and unfairly when it discharged a patient suffering from schizophrenia to a group home. Specifically, the City Attorney claimed that the discharge constituted elder abuse and contempt of court because the patient’s conservatorship order specified a discharge to a more restrictive facility. After a bench trial, the trial court found in Scripps’s favor on all counts and praised Scripps for its excellent care and for its thorough discharge planning.
The City Attorney appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that the public conservator consented to the discharge, as well as the trial court’s decision not to allow the City Attorney to make a late expert designation on the standard of care. Scripps retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Adopting Horvitz & Levy’s framing, the court held there was substantial evidence that Scripps reasonably believed the public conservator consented to the patient’s discharge to a group home suited for his needs. The Court of Appeal also held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to file a late expert designation, given the City Attorney’s “unwarranted, inadequately supported, and illogical” explanations for failing to designate an expert by the deadline.
People v. Scripps 
