 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marasovic v. Contra Costa County Adult Protective Services12/3/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Introduction
Plaintiff Carole Marasovic appeals from the judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court dismissing her action against defendants Contra Costa County (County), and County employees Christine Mulder and Rhonda Edwards following the court's sustaining of these defendants' demurrer to her second amended complaint without leave to amend. Mulder and Edwards are employees of defendant County and work for the Adult Protective Services (APS) division of its Employment and Human Services department.
The crux of plaintiff's complaint arises from APS's investigation, in concert with the El Cerrito Police Department, following a report by the police chief of suspected elder abuse of plaintiff's mother, Elizabeth Marasovic. Defendants' actions as alleged included planning and executing a search of plaintiff's residence, conducting an investigation without Elizabeth's consent and refusing to seek her consent, and advising and agreeing with hospital personnel to the transfer of Elizabeth from a hospital to a nursing facility where she shortly died, rather than releasing her to plaintiff's care.
The trial court sustained the demurrer against these defendants, without leave to amend on grounds that the allegations of the complaint did not state a claim against them and, additionally, the three defendants were immune from liability pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15634, subdivision (a) and Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 485.)
Plaintiff, who is representing herself on appeal (as she did in the trial court from the filing of her first amended complaint) contends the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to her second amended complaint. She further contends that if the court properly sustained the demurrer, she can amend her complaint to state a cause of action for trespass.
Facts and Procedural Background
"On appeal from dismissal following a sustained demurrer, we take as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint." (Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490, 495-496; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814; Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1291.) Further, we accept as true all facts that may be implied or inferred from those she expressly alleges. (Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, supra; Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 257, 266.)
The second amended complaint, insofar as these defendants are concerned, contained general allegations as follows:
Plaintiff and her blind, 83-year-old mother, Elizabeth, lived together, with plaintiff providing 24-hour care for her mother. Plaintiff had cared for Elizabeth for 19 years and Elizabeth wanted to continue being cared for by plaintiff. Elizabeth's physical health was fragile, as she had been diagnosed with an aneurysm, which would sometimes cause blood to gush from her mouth and nostrils. She had been admitted to the hospital for serious bleeding episodes on three or four occasions and each time had been released to plaintiff after receiving necessary treatment. Between bleeding episodes plaintiff and Elizabeth led active lives and Elizabeth was mentally alert and competent.
On Apri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|