## Facts

- George Mount, an elderly man, lived in his own home with his daughter, Tanya Mount, and Tanya’s son, Joaquin Renteria, who provided day-to-day care.
- George strongly preferred to remain at home and refused end-of-life interventions; he even declined efforts to evaluate possible prostate cancer because he did not want treatment even if cancer were found.
- George’s other daughter, Ramona Plank, lived elsewhere. Ramona’s son, Alexander Plank, was close to George and visited several times per month.
- Tanya discouraged Ramona from visiting George. On Ramona’s last visit, she reported seeing dog feces in the home and claimed Tanya yelled at George to clean it up.
- About two months before George died, he could still walk and feed himself, but his condition worsened.
- George’s physician later told him he could die at any time. After hearing this, George declined further medical care.
- About a month before his death, George became bedridden but remained lucid.
- Roughly two weeks before George died, Alexander visited and observed that George complained of pain and had difficulty breathing and sleeping; Alexander brushed accumulated skin flakes from the bed and noticed a stale odor in the room.
- After that visit, Tanya interfered with Alexander’s attempts to visit George again.
- During the last week of George’s life, he could not feed himself. Tanya fed him soup and a nutritional-supplement drink.
- A home-health nurse visited and recorded that George was dehydrated and malnourished, had early pressure sores, and was not receiving hospice care to address pain and suffering; the nurse arranged for hospice to begin the next day.
- George died that night before hospice began. An autopsy attributed his death to undiagnosed lung cancer.
- Ramona sued Tanya and Joaquin under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA), alleging neglect based on dehydration, malnutrition, developing pressure sores, and failure to obtain hospice care sooner.
- After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for defendants. Ramona appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Ramona failed to prove “neglect” under EADACPA (including the required level of culpability) based on the condition in which George was found shortly before death and the timing of hospice care.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was required to reverse because the evidence compelled a finding that defendants’ care caused compensable harm to George.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Tanya Mount and Joaquin Renteria.
- Applying substantial-evidence review, the court held the record permitted the trial court to find Ramona did not carry her burden to prove actionable elder neglect under EADACPA.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicting testimony or revisit credibility determinations made by the trial judge.
- Evidence of George’s repeated refusal of medical intervention and the autopsy finding of lung cancer supported the trial court’s rejection of Ramona’s theory that defendants’ conduct caused the claimed harm in a manner meeting the Act’s standards.

## Legal Principles

- “Neglect” under EADACPA focuses on a caretaker’s failure to assist in meeting basic needs (including food, hydration, hygiene, medical care, and protection from health and safety hazards), as described in Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.57.
- To obtain the Act’s special remedies, a plaintiff must prove neglect and the required state of mind (such as recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice) by clear and convincing evidence; ordinary negligence is not enough.
- On appeal from a bench trial, the reviewing court asks only whether substantial evidence supports the judgment, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing parties and drawing reasonable inferences to support the findings.
- An appellate court does not reassess witness credibility or resolve conflicts in the evidence differently from the trier of fact.
- Proof of causation matters: the trier of fact may consider evidence of terminal disease and an elder’s refusal of treatment when deciding whether alleged care deficiencies were a substantial factor in producing compensable harm.

## Conclusion

Plank v. Mount affirmed a defense judgment after a bench trial on an elder-neglect claim, holding that under deferential substantial-evidence review the trial court could find the plaintiff did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the in-home caregivers’ conduct amounted to EADACPA neglect with the required culpability or that it caused compensable harm, particularly given the decedent’s expressed refusal of further treatment and the autopsy finding that undiagnosed lung cancer caused death.


Plank v. Mount, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 6774 (2012)