1. Motion by Defendant Integrated healthcare, Inc. for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication of Issues:

(a) Defendant Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

(b) The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 1st cause of action for dependent adult abuse is DENIED.

(i) There is a triable issue as to whether Defendant WMC-A is an alter ego of Defendant IHHI. (See, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts, at ¶¶ 7, 9, 21-26.) The evidence cited to in support of the above Disputed Material Facts establish that there is a triable issue as to the unity of interest and ownership between the corporations, use of the same offices and employees, and whether WMC-A is merely a shell or conduit of IHHI.

(ii) The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 2nd cause of action for negligence is DENIED for the same reasons set forth above in (i). (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts, at ¶¶ 40, 42, 54-59.)

(iii) The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the issue of punitive damages is DENIED for the same reasons set forth above in (i). (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts, at ¶¶ 105, 108, 120-125.)

(c) Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice [“RJN”]:
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED in part and is DENIED in part. The court GRANTS judicial notice of Defendant’s Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Exhibit 1). The court DENIES judicial notice of excerpts printed from Defendant’s website (Exhibit 2).

(d) Evidentiary Objections:

(i) Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections: Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are improperly interlineated into the separate statement and does not comply with CRC 3.1354. Therefore, the evidentiary objections are OVERRULED in their entirety.

(ii) Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff’s RJN: Defendant’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED in part and are OVERRULED in part. Defendant’s evidentiary objection as to No. 1 is OVERRULED. Defendant’s evidentiary objection as to No. 2 is SUSTAINED.

(iii) Defendant’s Objection to the Declaration of David Medby: Defendant’s evidentiary objection is OVERRULED.

(iv) Defendant’s Objection to the Evidence in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition:
Defendant’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED in part and are OVERRULED in part. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED as to objection nos. 4, 8, 9, 13, and 23-24. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as to objection nos. 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, and 14-22, and 25.

Responding Party shall give Notice.

2. Motion by Defendant WMC-A, Inc., etc. for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication of Issues:

(a) Defendant WMC-A, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

(b) The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 1st cause of action for dependent adult abuse is DENIED.

(i) Issue No. 1: Defendant first contends that the court should grant the Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to the 1st cause of action because this claim is mutually exclusive of the 2nd cause of action for professional negligence.

Defendant cites to Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783-84, Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 30, and Smith v. Ben Bennett, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1507 for this authority. None of the above cases hold that Plaintiff must pick and proceed on only one theory of liability. Rather, the cases note that elder abuse and professional negligence covers separate and distinct misconduct, and therefore a health care provider can be held liable for elder abuse. Although Smith v. Ben Bennett, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1518 states in dicta that the same set of facts must give rise to either professional negligence or reckless neglect, this does not necessarily mean that this determination must be made at summary judgment. Moreover, Smith pertained to an appeal on the limited issue of whether the court is allowed to apply different statute of limitations for “professional negligence” and elder abuse.

In addition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claims sound in negligence and not neglect. However, there is a triable issue as to whether Defendant “neglected” Plaintiff. First, it is troubling that Defendant contends in the moving papers that “there is no admissible evidence that plaintiff was ever attacked by anyone, let alone by another patient.” (Moving Papers, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, at pg. 15:19-20.) In addition, it is troubling that Nancy Henry (the expert relied upon by Defendant) states: “The records show that Plaintiff’s alleged fall or injury was unwitnessed and there is a gap in understanding of exactly what happened…. [I]t is not known when, where, why or the sex of the alleged assailant.” (Decl. of Henry, at ¶ 17.) These statements are troublesome in light of the fact that there is a letter dated 5/30/12 issued by the director of WMC-A which states that another patient assaulted Plaintiff. (Plaintiff’s Evidence, Exhibit 40.) At minimum, there is a triable issue as to whether Plaintiff was assaulted by another patient (i.e., Lisa Castro). (Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Fact, at ¶ 17.)

In addition, there is a triable issue as to whether Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff from safety hazards. There is a triable issue as to whether Defendant placed individuals with known assaultive or aggressive behavior in less-secure areas without adequate supervision, and therefore neglected Plaintiff and other patients in these areas. (Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Fact, at ¶¶ 8-10, 16 and the evidence referenced therein.)

(ii) Issue No. 2: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim for alternative damages remedies for the 1st cause of action as against corporate Defendant WMC-A lack merit.

First, even with the heightened evidentiary requirement, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish a triable issue as to whether Defendant neglected Plaintiff, and that such neglect amounts to recklessness. The evidence presented by Plaintiff shows that there were multiple altercations that involved Plaintiff prior to the incident, that Defendant repeatedly failed to properly conduct psychiatric nursing assessments by an R.N. for each shift, and that Defendant may have failed to provide adequate supervision. (Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Fact, at ¶¶ 35-37, 43, 45, 47, 48.)

In addition, even with the heightened evidentiary requirement, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish a triable issue as to whether an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant ratified the wrongful conduct. The above evidence sufficiently establishes a triable issue as to whether there was a pattern with respect to the neglect of patient’s care, thereby rendering the wrongful conduct a part of the employer’s policy or practice, which reflects ratification by the officer, director, or managing agent. Moreover, Plaintiff has established triable issue as to which officer, director, or managing agents of Defendant ratified the subject conduct. (Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Fact, at ¶¶ 55, 56.)

The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 2nd cause of action for negligence is DENIED.

(iii) Issue No. 3: Defendant contends that the facts alleged show that its conduct did not fall below the standard of care.

For the same reasons set forth above with respect to Issue No. 1, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish a triable issue as to whether Defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care. (See also, Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Fact, at ¶¶ 67-69, 75 and the evidence referenced therein.)

The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the issue of punitive damages is DENIED.

(iv) Issue No. 4: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages lacks merit.

First, Defendant contends that punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of law. Defendant cites to Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1049 in support of this contention. Marron, however, is distinguishable because the Court of Appeal merely held that the enhanced remedies of Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657 are not punitive damages under Gov. Code § 818. In addition, Plaintiff has cited to more recent Court of Appeal decisions which found that punitive damages are recoverable. [See In re Conservatorship of Kayle (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1, 6; see also Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 426, 432.]

In addition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks clear and convincing evidence that Defendant engaged in any tortious conduct warranting punitive damages. However, for the same reasons set forth under the analysis section for Issue No. 2, triable issue of material fact exists with respect to the issue of punitive damages.

(c) Evidentiary Objections:

(i) Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections: Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled.

(ii) Defendant’s Objection to the Declaration of David Medby: Defendant’s evidentiary objection is overruled.

(iii) Defendant’s Objection to the Evidence in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition: Defendant’s evidentiary objections are sustained in part and are overruled in part. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are sustained as to objection Nos. 7, 8, 12, 23, and 24. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are overruled as to objection Nos. 1-6, 9-11, 13-22, and 25.

(iv) Defendant’s Objection to the Declaration of Denise Rounds: Defendant’s evidentiary objections are sustained in part and are overruled in part. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are sustained as to objection Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 40, 55, 56, and 57. Defendant’s evidentiary objections are overruled as to objection Nos. 2, 4-8, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36-39, and 41-54.

Responding Party is to give notice.