VENTURA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – A cap on noneconomic damages for certain health care lawsuits doesn’t apply to instances of elder abuse at a psychiatric hospital, a California court has ruled.
The Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal on April 5 rejected arguments from defendants that a $250,000 liability limit within the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 should be used to lessen a $6.85 million verdict against them.
“The Elder Abuse Act provides enhanced remedies for victims,” Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote. “A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees. A deceased victim’s successor is entitled to an award of some noneconomic damages.
“There is no basis for interpreting the Elder Abuse Act as restricting an award of damages for those fortunate enough to have survived the abuse.”
Aurora hired Juan Valencia as a mental health worker in July 2011 after he lied on an employment form that asked if he had ever been arrested for a crime requiring registration as a sex offender. He was arrested in 1989 for sexual penetration with a foreign object.
Valencia underwent two days of orientation. Two years later, it came to light he was engaged in sexual relations with three women suffering from psychosis who did not have the mental capacity to consent to sex. It earned him the nickname “Rapey Juan.”
Two women – Samantha B. and Danielle W. – sued Aurora and the company that owns it. A jury awarded $3.75 million to Samantha in noneconomic damages and $3 million to Danielle, also all noneconomic damages.
Each also received $50,000 in punitive damages. Valencia was assessed 35%, and Aurora and owner Signature Healthcare split the remaining responsibility.
The appellate decision affirmed that verdict, even though Aurora’s attempt to completely probe Valencia’s past was hampered by laws preventing the company it hired for a background check to report a criminal offense more than seven years old.
An incident with a different worker in 2004 opened the companies’ eyes to the vulnerability of female patients, the court ruled, though Signature did not pay for increased education.
“Aurora and Signature are sophisticated parties,” the court said. “They are part of an organization that operates 11 psychiatric hospitals nationwide.
“It is reasonable to conclude that they know how to operate in a manner that protects their patients from sexual predation. Yet Aurora and Signature adopted policies that exposed their patients to a high degree of risk of sexual predation.”
Other bad news for the defendants was the reversal of their victories on claims of vicarious liability. The appeals court ordered a new trial for those, finding there is evidence for a jury to rule Valencia was acting within the scope of his employment.
“The duties of a mental health worker include helping patients with daily living activities,” the decision says. “The workers are personally involved with the patients over an extended period of time.
“The patients are vulnerable; they may suffer from impaired judgment or other cognitive impairments. Sexual exploitation of the patients by employees is a foreseeable hazard arising from the circumstances of the job.
“That hazard was exponentially increased by Aurora’s policies, including allowing male workers 20 minutes alone with patients and providing inadequate training on worker-patient boundaries.”