Good evening your honors, may it please the court, I’m jordan de la torre, attorney for appelants. At issue in this case is the protection of California’s elderly outpatients from the reckless conduct of their doctors. The appellants respectfully request that this Court affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of California for the following two reasons! I. Custodial obligations are not required under the Elder Abuse Act!
II. The respondent’s conduct here amply satisfies the standard for !
!
1. Custody and care!
!
!
-15610.57 care OR custody!
!
!
!
(a) "Neglect" means either of the following:!
(1) The negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder!
(2) The negligent failure of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of self care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.!
!
!
!
(b) Includes but is not limited to traditional custodial obligations, and (2) failure to provide medical for physical health needs!
!
!
-15610.37 “health practitioner” expressly includes “doctors and podiatrists”!
!
!
-15630 Reporting (legislative intent)!
!
!
- Delaney!
!
!
!
- Holding (neglect applies to healthcare practitioners, to read into this a requirement of custodial obligations not only contravenes the statute, but also narrows the holding of the case) !
!
!
!
- Facts (in that case, a woman was admitted to a nursing center, and due to the neglect of her doctors, she died of sepsis from an infected bed sore.)!
!
!
- Our case!
!
!
!
- Facts (Ms. Cox was under the care of her doctors for a period of nearly ten years, thus satisfying the care element of the