- Nursing Home Abuse Lawsuits
“What Should I Do If I'm Filing A Nursing Home Abuse Lawsuit?”
Nursing home abuse is an offense that has both civil and criminal law dimensions. California permits suits to be filed by persons who suffer physical or mental abuse at the hands of a caregiver. The target of the suit may be an individual abuser, the abuser's employer, or even the owner of the nursing home. Such suits may be filed by the affected senior, the senior's family, or a legally responsible party. Further remedies include filing a report with the police and reporting the abuse to responsible public agencies.
If you've been injured because of nursing home abuse, monetary damages are available to compensate you for an array of harms. Damages available include:
1) Medical treatment expenses;
2) money for added long- or short-term care costs;
3) money for additional nursing assistance;
4) the cost of medical equipment;
5) psychological therapy expenses;
6) compensation for your emotional distress, pain, and/ or suffering;
7) attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing your suit to court; and,
8) punitive damages, which are awarded to punish willfully wrongful conduct or extreme indifference.
The Kann California Law Group now offers nursing home abuse lawsuit representation. Unlike criminal law, which is concerned primarily with incarceration, nursing home abuse lawsuits focus on compensating you for your injuries and remunerating you for your lost earnings. Below you'll find information on defining “nursing home abuse” in California, facts on what can be done if you've been a victim of nursing home abuse, information about proving nursing home abuse, insight into the government's role in a nursing home abuse investigation, discussion of three forms of Elder Abuse under the Penal Code, defenses against allegation of nursing home abuse, and related criminal charges. Please feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County with further questions. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. It's guaranteed.
Defining “Nursing Home Abuse” in California
California's “Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA)” governs abuse report obligations for caregivers. It applies to persons over the age of sixty-five (“seniors”) and “dependent adults” between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four. Broadly speaking, “nursing home abuse” refers to:
1) acts of physical and sexual abuse,
2) emotional cruelty (including willful isolation and denial of necessities),
3) “senior fraud” (a form of financial exploitation) and,
4) neglectful endangerment (placing an elderly person in a situation in which the senior's health or safety is endangered).
Moreover if you've experienced any of the following, California law also provides that you may have been the victim of abuse if you suffered any of the following:
4) unreasonable physical constraint or prolonged or continual deprivation of food or water; and,
This list is not exhaustive. Contact the Kann California Law Group to learn more if your complaint is not listed here.
Example: Defendant Douglass is financial director of a Santa Clarita nursing home called Mesa Verde. He's responsible for getting residents to sign forms authorizing the home to deduct automatic monthly residential payments from their bank accounts. Douglass, however, added a paragraph giving Mesa Verde power of attorney to decide all the resident's financial affairs and didn't tell anyone. Plaintiff Paulie, seventy-two, learns of the situation after he signs the paper and Douglass changes Paulie's will to make Mesa Verde his sole legal beneficiary. Paulie, whom Douglass knows has over two million dollars in his estate, wants to know if Douglass' deception can be described as “nursing home abuse.” The act does not involve physical harm. Is it nursing home abuse?
Conclusion: Douglass committed a fraud when he added the paragraph concerning power of attorney to the document meant to authorize Mesa Verde to deduct automatic payments. That he did not inform elderly residents in the care of the nursing home constitutes a breach of duty to the residents. He was, furthermore, aware of Paulie's financial situation and acted in order to exploit both Paulie's wealth and his ignorance, benefitting Mesa Verde and himself. Paulie, who is older than sixty-five, did not wish this to occur. Thus, Douglass has committed a form of financial abuse otherwise known as “senior fraud.” The conduct permits filing suit to recoup expenses incurred by Douglass' wrongdoing (not to mention to undo the changes Douglass made to Paulie's will). The act is also punishable under Section 368 of the California Penal Code. Thus, Douglass' conduct can certainly be described as nursing home abuse.
“What Can Be Done If I've Been A Victim of Nursing Home Abuse?”
As alluded to previously, civil and criminal law apply to acts constituting nursing home abuse. If you've been the victim of nursing home abuse, you can file suit against individuals working as:
2) persons responsible for administration or supervision inside the nursing home, and/or
3) the owners or operators of the offending nursing home.
You can also seek an injunction that prevents the nursing home from doing whatever it did or continues to do.
Recall, furthermore, that people other than the affected elder may seek legal assistance. If you, or a family member, have been abused in a nursing home, you can sue for awards to compensate you for monetary losses and pain and suffering suffering. You may also report the abuse to a state agency like the California Department of Aging. Or you can choose to report the illegal conduct to the police. And you're free to do all of these.
Proving Nursing Home Abuse in California Courts
Proving Nursing Home Abuse in California requires, broadly, proving:
- Senior/Dependent Adult: The plaintiff was 65 years of age or older or a dependent adult at the time of the conduct; AND,
- Harmed or Damaged: The elder or dependent person was harmed or damaged by the defendant; AND,
- Substantial Factor: The conduct was a substantial factor in causing the elder or dependent plaintiff's harm.
Lawsuits typically go through stages beginning with filing the suit itself. The parties may thereafter proceed to “discovery,” the point at which documents are exchanged, depositions are taken and information necessary to the case must be produced.
Our nursing home abuse lawyers will handle every aspect of your case, including investigation, depositions, witness interviews, procurement of medical records and fight for you at trial. If you want to settle your claim, additionally, our lawyers will handle the negotiation process to get you your rightful compensation. Contact the Kann California Law Group to learn more about proving nursing home abuse in California courts.
“What Does the Government Do in Investigating Nursing Home Abuse Claims?”
Government investigation of nursing home abuse claims begins ordinarily with the state-appointed local ombudsman, an official representing the elderly or dependent person, whose authority to investigate the staff of the nursing home, its administration, or any other relevant person originates with the California Department of Aging. The ombudsman begins an inquiry after a complaint is lodged with his or her office. Investigation will usually involve visiting the nursing home and performing an on-site evaluation of the facts, as would be expected.
Assuming the facts warrant further action, the local ombudsman's office will, in turn, inform the state Department of Health about the complaint. The Department of Health is empowered to penalize the nursing home, the nursing home employee or the nursing home's administration, as appropriate. Furthermore, the Department of Health may inform the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse and/or the relevant local district attorney's office, if it deems a complaint worthy of criminal inquiry.
Note: Those deemed “mandated reporters” (persons who, by law, must report all instances of suspected nursing home abuse) are legally obliged to report nursing home abuse to both the ombudsman's office and to law enforcement, permitting each to conduct its own investigation. Included in this group are nursing home staff and nursing home administrators.
Contact the Kann California Law Group
The State of California regards nursing home abuse as a serious concern. If you've been involved in nursing home abuse, it's essential you retain a skilled, dedicated attorney as soon as possible. Your rights and livelihood may be at stake.
Remember, a professional nursing home abuse attorney may be able to:
- Negotiate an award;
- Win your case at trial;
- Or get other legal relief for you, as appropriate.
The attorneys at the Kann California Law Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's personal injury justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities.
If you or someone you know is dealing with nursing home abuse, our attorneys will analyze the facts of the case and plan a strategy that will help to obtain the best possible outcome.
Contact the Kann California Law Group today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
Elder Abuse Criminal Law:
Criminal Penalties For Those Accused of “Elder Abuse” Under California Penal Code §368(b): [Abuse of Elder or Dependent Adult Likely to Produce Great Bodily Harm or Death]
Section 368(b) of the Penal Code makes it illegal to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to suffer, or to inflict unjustifiable pain or suffering on an elder or dependent adult, or to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to be injured (if you have care or custody of an elder), or to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to be put in a situation in which that person's health is endangered by circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death.
In order to convict a person under CPC §368(b), the prosecution must prove that:
- Inﬂicted Unjustiﬁable Physical Pain or Mental Suffering: The defendant inﬂicted unjustiﬁable physical pain or mental suffering on an elder or dependent adult; OR,
- Willfully Caused or Permitted: The defendant willfully caused or permitted an elder or dependent adult to suffer unjustiﬁable physical pain or mental suffering; OR,
- Having Care or Custody…/Willfully Caused or Permitted: Having care or custody of an elder or dependent adult, the defendant willfully caused or permitted the adult or that adult's health to be injured; OR,
- Having Care or Custody…/Placed in a Situation: Having care or custody of an elder or dependent adult, the defendant willfully caused or permitted the adult to be placed in a situation where the adult or the adult's health was endangered; AND,
- Inflicted/Caused/Permitted: The defendant inﬂicted suffering on an elder or dependent adult, caused, or permitted that person to suffer, or to be injured, or to be endangered under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death; AND,
- Elder/Dependent Adult: The victim was at the time an elder or dependent adult; AND,
- Knowledge: When the defendant acted, he or she knew or reasonably should've known that the victim was an elder or a dependent adult.
Since the offense of elder abuse can be charged as either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the unique facts of the case, California Penal Code [CPC] §368(b) is a “wobbler” crime. A conviction of the Felony form of the crime may result in:
- A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both a fine and imprisonment.
Note, however, that sentence enhancement is built into the statute. Depending on the age of the victim of the abuse, and whether she or he suffered actual great bodily injury, a person convicted under CPC §368(b) shall be sentenced to an additional:
- Three (3) years in a state prison, if the victim is under seventy years of age; OR,
- Five (5) years in a state prison, if the victim is seventy years of age or older.
Should the victim of the abuse die, proof that the defendant proximately caused the death of the victim shall result in an additional:
- Five (5) years in a state prison, if the victim is under seventy years of age; OR,
- Seven (7) years in a state prison, if the victim is seventy years of age or older.
You can find more information in the Elder Abuse section of the Kann California Law Group's criminal law website. Feel free to contact one of our offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Elder Abuse (Section 368(b))
To convict under CPC §368(b), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant caused or permitted an elder person or a dependent adult to suffer, inflicted unjustifiable pain or suffering on an elder or a dependent adult, or caused or permitted an elder person or a dependent adult to be injured (having had care or custody of an elder), or caused or permitted an elder or dependent adult to be put in a situation in which that person's health was endangered by circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death. When the defendant acted, he or she knew or reasonably should've known that the victim was an elder or a dependent adult. Finally, the elder or dependent adult suffered injury, unjustifiable pain, endangerment or death as a result of the defendant's acts.
Example: Defendant Deke, a nurse, has recently tested positive for COVID-19 (the “coronavirus”). Angry at seniors, from whom he believes he contracted the virus, and knowing that he is contagious, Deke resolves to make Victim Velma, an eighty-eight-year old resident of Santa Monica Nursing Home, and a patient on whom Deke attends, sick with the virus. Deke handles Velma's food, touches her bare skin, breathes in her uncovered face and touches Velma's personal belongings. Velma, however, doesn't fall ill. In fact, no one in Santa Monica Nursing Home contracts the flu virus. Nonetheless, after an email in which Deke admits doing all this comes to light, Deke is arrested and charged under CPC §368(b). Deke defends himself by pointing out that, despite his efforts, no one got sick. Is he guilty on these facts?
Conclusion: Deke willfully endangered Velma by placing her in a position in which she could contract a strain of influenza that is particularly dangerous for elderly persons. (COVID-19 has a death rate higher than 20% among persons aged eighty or older.) Deke knew for a fact that he had the virus. The mere decision to endanger the elderly person in a way likely to cause serious injury or death suffices to violate the statute. In other words, Velma didn't have to contract the virus in order for Deke to endanger Velma in a way likely to cause great bodily harm or death. Finally, Deke knew that Velma was elderly; that is why he tried to infect her. Deke could be convicted of the charge even though he did not infect Velma.
Criminal Penalties For “Elder Abuse” Under California Penal Code §368(c) [Abuse of Elder or Dependent Adult]
Section 368(c) makes it illegal to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to suffer, or to inflict unjustifiable pain or suffering on an elder or dependent adult, or to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to be injured (if you have care or custody of an elder), or to cause or permit an elder or dependent adult to be put in a situation in which that person's health is endangered by circumstances or conditions unlikely to produce great bodily harm or death.
A first conviction under CPC §368(c) may result in:
- A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both a fine and imprisonment.
A second, or subsequent, conviction may result in:
- A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both a fine and imprisonment.
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Elder Abuse (Section 368(c))
To convict under CPC §368(c), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant caused or permitted an elder person or a dependent adult to suffer, inflicted unjustifiable pain or suffering on an elder or a dependent adult, or caused or permitted an elder person or a dependent adult to be injured (having had care or custody of an elder), or caused or permitted an elder or a dependent adult to be put in a situation in which that person's health was endangered by
the circumstances or the conditions. When the defendant acted, finally, he or she knew or reasonably should've known the victim was an elder or a dependent adult.
Example: Defendant Dominica, an administrator at Pasadena Private Nursing Facility, has a troublesome resident in her retirement community. Victim Verne, the resident, swears, yells, and uses racist epithets when addressing staff. He also upsets the other elderly residents when he behaves this way. In order to discipline Verne, Dominica instructs staff to withhold Verne's dessert every day he does this. (Dominica is careful to offset lost nutrition on such days by increasing the size of the other portions of his meals.) Verne, however, hates this arrangement. He complains to Son and Daughter after this happens twice. They, in turn, report Dominica to police for violating CPC §368(c). Should she be charged with the crime?
Conclusion: Dominica's decision was based on a reasonable need to discipline Verne's conduct. (After all, she owes a duty of care to her staff, the other residents of the Facility and Verne – not one specific resident.) Dominica had to act to protect her staff and the residents of the home for which she would be both legally and contractually responsible. Most importantly, Dominica's act did not involve physical harm, nor did it involve emotional suffering beyond frustrating Verne's desire for something sweet after a meal. Injury or endangerment is essential in proving an allegation under the statute at issue. When we consider that Dominica didn't harm Verne and was acting in a reasonable manner in order to fulfill a duty to other residents and the staff when she acted, Dominica should not be charged with the crime.
Criminal Penalties For “Elder Abuse” Under California Penal Code §368(e) [Theft from Elder or Dependent Adult]
Section 368(e) criminalizes any situation in which a “caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult […] violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud,” or in which a caretaker “violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft with respect to the property or personal identifying information of” an elder. This is also known as ‘financial elder abuse.' It includes the reasonable value of services rendered.
To convict under Section 368(e), the prosecution must prove that:
- Theft/Embezzlement/Forgery/Fraud/Identity Theft: The defendant committed theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft; AND
- Property…/Information…/Of Elder or Dependent Adult: The property taken or personal identifying information used was owned by an elder or a dependent adult; AND,
- Defendant Was A Caretaker: The defendant was a caretaker of the elder or dependent adult.
Since the offense can be charged as either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the value of the criminal act, CPC §368(e) is a “wobbler” crime. A conviction of the Felony form (involving property, services, or money in excess of $950) may result in:
- A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
- A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both a fine and imprisonment.
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Elder Abuse (Section 368(e))
To convict under CPC §368(e), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant committed theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft. The property or services taken, or the personal identifying information used, was owned by an elder or a dependent adult. Finally, the defendant was a caretaker of the elder or dependent adult.
Example: Defendant Deena is a nurse at Encino Nursing Home. One of her jobs is cleaning the rooms of the residents for whom she cares. Victim Vickie, a ninety-two-year-old resident, is one of the residents. Vickie suffers from dementia and is often confused regarding whether she's at her home or in a nursing facility. Thus, she often tries to clean the room herself, thinking the space to be inside her own home. Deena comes upon her doing this one afternoon and instead of intervening, tells Vickie, “Clean your house!” Then she pulls up a chair, puts up her feet, turns on Vickie's television and starts to watch a “Saved By The Bell” rerun. Her hysterical laughter gets the attention of Head Nurse, who enters, sees that Deena has Vickie cleaning, and calls police. Deena is arrested and charged under CPC §368(e). Deena says that neither money nor property was taken; thus, she can't be guilty. Is Deena correct?
Conclusion: Deena, knowing that Vickie was performing an act for which Deena was paid (meaning that cleaning the room had a financial value), chose to allow Vickie to perform an act for which Deena was responsible. She did this knowing that Vickie believed wrongfully that she was in her own home. Thus, Deena committed a fraud by leading Vickie to believe that she was cleaning her own home. She did this to allow herself to realize a financial benefit for which she hadn't worked. Deena has, in effect, stolen from the home and defrauded Vickie - who should be paid for having done Deena's job. Therefore, even though Deena did not take property or money from Vickie, she is incorrect. She committed financial elder abuse by duping Vickie into performing a valuable service and would likely be convicted of the offense.
Defenses to Allegations of Nursing Home Abuse
Three common defenses against a nursing home abuse accusation are:
There's Insufficient Evidence Of Abuse
Example: Defendant David is nurse to Victim Vera, a ninety-year-old resident of LA Nursing Home who can no longer speak or write. Vera shouldn't go to sleep on her side because it causes subdermal bleeding. When she does so, the side on which she sleeps can appear bruised. David normally turns Vera onto her back each night as a result. He forgets to do so one night, however, and Vera sleeps on her side. Vera's side is bruised when she awakens. Vera's Adult Son, visiting her that morning, sees the bruise. He assumes that Vera's been the victim of physical abuse and concludes that David is the perpetrator. Adult Son reports David to police. He's arrested and charged under CPC §368(b). But David has an excellent performance record and hasn't been the subject of a complaint. Should he be convicted on these facts?
Conclusion: David can argue that Adult Son has reached a conclusion lacking sufficient evidence. There is an innocent reason that Vera's bruise could've appeared – namely, Vera's natural predisposition toward bruising while lying on her side when sleeping. Furthermore, the omission of action leading to the bruise (not turning Vera over) was not one which would likely produce any sort of injury. Additionally, David has an excellent record in working with elderly adults and hasn't been the subject of a complaint before Adult Son's accusation; thus, he seems unlikely to have committed a violent act. Finally, Vera, the person in the best position to make the complaint, is incapable of communicating. Therefore, Adult Son is speculating about her condition without having access to information necessary for his conclusion. Considering these facts, David should be acquitted because there's insufficient evidence of abuse.
The Defendant Was Mistakenly Identified
Example: Defendant Denisa is a nurse in Westwood Nursing Care Facility. She is one of four African-American nurses who attend to the floor on which Victim Vincente resides. Denisa, like two of the other three nurses, is six feet in height. All the nurses have short hair. They wear identical uniforms. None of them wears makeup or has a visible identifying mark like a tattoo. Vincente, finally, has exceptionally poor vision. Nonetheless, after he has an extremely valuable watch stolen from his room, Vincente insists that Denisa is responsible for a theft. Denisa swears she has been simply been the victim of a mistaken identification. Nonetheless, she's charged under CPC §368(e). Should Denisa be convicted?
Conclusion: Denisa is one of four people who could've committed the theft because four nurses who resembled each other in a variety of ways had access to the people who lived on Vincente's floor. This, combined with the fact that Vincente has very bad vision, means that Denisa could've been mistakenly identified. In effect, Vincente had a 3 in 4 chance of being wrong. Denisa, it follows, can raise reasonable doubt regarding whether she was incorrectly accused. All reasonable doubts in the US courts must be resolved in the defendant's favor. Denisa, thus, shouldn't be convicted. She was mistakenly identified.
The Accusation Is False
Example: Plaintiff Patrice, a seventy-five-year old resident of Reseda Nursing Home, has almost gone bankrupt. She's realizing that she'll have nothing to leave her many relatives when she passes away. Thus, Patrice falsely accuses Defendant Derrick, the nursing home's owner, of directing nurses to steal from her. Patrice then files a lawsuit for $1 million, claiming nursing home abuse consistent with a violation of caretaker reporting duties under California Welfare and Institutions Code §15630. Should Derrick have to pay?
Conclusion: As the facts make clear, Patrice created the story of being the victim of theft in order to sue Derrick's nursing home. There is no basis in fact for her lawsuit. It follows that Derrick should prevail in the civil suit and Patrice should not be paid anything. The accusation against Derrick is simply false.
Note: The crimes below are generally described as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §368 and/or have common elements that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Included in the California Penal Code are several forms of offense related to Elder Abuse, including: Battery (CPC §242), sex crimes, and Medi-Cal fraud.
Battery (CPC §242) occurs in California when anyone willfully and unlawfully uses force against another person. An act is committed “willfully” when done it willingly or on purpose. You don't have to intend on breaking the law, hurting someone else, or gaining any advantage to act “willfully.”  Battery is related to nursing home abuse because physical abuse in nursing homes often involves criminal Battery.
If you're convicted of Battery, the penalty may be:
- A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
- A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
- Both imprisonment and a fine.
Note: A slight touch can be enough to commit a Battery, if it's done in a rude or angry way. The touching doesn't have to cause pain or injury.
You can find more information in the Battery section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We guarantee it.
California Criminal Jury Instructions – Battery
To convict you under CPC §242, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
You willfully and unlawfully touched someone in a harmful or offensive manner. Additionally, you didn't act in self-defense, in defense of someone else or while reasonably disciplining a child.
Example: Defendant Deborah goes to a protest. She intends on pelting Victim Vanessa's limousine with eggs. Conscious of the potential for damage, however, Deborah uses only unshelled soft-boiled eggs. She throws the eggs at the car while Vanessa is sitting in it. Vanessa has police arrest Deborah for Battery. Deborah insists she couldn't have hurt Vanessa; thus, she says, she's innocent. Is she guilty?
Conclusion: Deborah intentionally threw eggs at an object connected closely enough to Vanessa that Vanessa could consider it a kind of extension of herself (i.e., her limousine, while she was sitting in it). She took offense to the eggs' touching the vehicle. Deborah wasn't defending anyone at the time. These are the elements of the crime. While Deborah should be lauded for trying to minimize the potential for damage in throwing the eggs, she simply chose to break the law in a safer manner. Deborah is guilty.
Sadly, elderly and dependent persons can be the victims many different crimes. This includes sex offenses. Anyone who engages in non-consensual sexual activity in California is guilty of committing a crime. Non-consensual sex acts involving an elderly patient in this state may be properly met, it follows, with criminal charges. In California, sex crimes range from Rape to Sexual Battery (CPC §243.4).
You can find more information in the California Sex Offense Lawyers section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. Guaranteed.
Fraud involving Medi-Cal (a state medical insurance program) can occur in a variety of ways. Perhaps the most common form of Med-Cal fraud is fraudulently billing for things such as: unnecessary drugs or medical supplies; unauthorized medical procedures; services which are not really performed; and the cost of medical personnel who aren't attending to a person. Each of these acts can give rise to charges of committing criminal fraud.
You can find more information in the California Insurance Fraud Defense Attorneys section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Calls go directly to a lawyer. Guaranteed.
 “'Dependent adult' means a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, between the ages of 18 and 64 years who resides in this state and who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities, or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age.” See WIC §15610.23 (a).
 See State of California Department of Aging, CA.GOV.
 For more information, see “Long-Term Care Ombudsman,” State of California Department of Aging, CA.GOV.
 For more information, see “California Department of Public Health,” CA.GOV.
 For more information, see “Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse,” State of California, Department of Justice.
 See Endnote 1.
 “Unjustiﬁable physical pain or mental suffering is pain or suffering that is not reasonably necessary or is excessive under the circumstances.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 831 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 “Great bodily harm means signiﬁcant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 830 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Additional facts must be proved if it's alleged that the defendant had a legal duty to supervise and control the conduct of the person(s) who caused or inﬂicted the unjustiﬁable physical pain or mental suffering or if it's claimed that the defendant was criminally negligent. See California Criminal Jury Instructions 830 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See CPC §672.
 See CPC §368 (b) (2) (A).
 See CPC §368 (b) (2) (B).
 See CPC §368 (b) (3) (A).
 See CPC §368 (b) (3) (B).
 See “Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths” at Worldometers.info.
 See above.
 See CPC §530.5.
 See CPC §368 (e).
 “Property includes money, labor, or real or personal property.” See California Criminal Instructions 1807 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 “A caretaker is someone who has the care, custody, or control of an elder or a dependent adult, or is someone who stands in a position of trust with an elder or dependent adult.” See California Criminal Instructions 1807 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See Endnote 14.
 See CPC §19.
 For more information, see “Medi-Cal,” CoveredCalifornia.com.