## Facts

- George Fenimore, an elderly man with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, was admitted to a state neuropsychiatric hospital operated by the Regents for protective supervision and acute care.
- The family alleged the hospital knew George was an extreme fall risk requiring continuous monitoring.
- Shortly after admission, George allegedly was left unattended and fell; the family asserted the hospital was understaffed at the time.
- The family alleged the hospital provided inadequate post-fall assessment and, despite pain and inability to walk, failed to timely diagnose and treat a hip fracture for about four days.
- An x-ray eventually identified a fractured hip; George underwent surgery the same day, was transferred to rehabilitation, did not recover, and died more than three months later.
- Plaintiffs alleged the hospital had a chronic, deliberate practice of violating staffing and related safety regulations for cost savings, despite knowing the risks to elderly and dependent patients.
- Plaintiffs sued for elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.), negligence, negligent hiring/supervision, and wrongful death; the trial court sustained a demurrer to the elder-abuse claim without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged statutory “neglect” under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, rather than only professional negligence.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the mental state required for enhanced remedies under the Act—recklessness (or oppression, fraud, or malice).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the elder-abuse cause of action.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged “neglect” by pleading failures to protect an elder from health and safety hazards and to provide necessary medical care.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged recklessness by pleading deliberate, ongoing understaffing and knowing regulatory violations tied to conscious disregard of patient safety.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings, permitting pursuit of Elder Abuse Act remedies.

## Legal Principles

- “Neglect” under the Elder Abuse Act includes failure to assist in personal needs, failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs, and failure to protect from health and safety hazards. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.57.)
- Enhanced remedies under the Act require pleading and proving neglect committed with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.)
- Ordinary professional negligence, even if serious, is not enough; elder-abuse liability requires conduct beyond a mere mistake in the rendition of medical care.
- At the demurrer stage, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and construe the pleading liberally; allegations of institutional policies (including chronic understaffing and known safety-rule violations) may support an inference of recklessness.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations of leaving a high-risk elder unsupervised, failing to assess and timely treat a serious injury, and maintaining deliberate understaffing and regulatory noncompliance for cost reasons stated a plausible claim for statutory neglect committed with recklessness, requiring reversal of the demurrer and remand.


Fenimore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)