Complaint Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021

\OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG William M. Berman, Esq., State Bar No.2 190078 Harlan J. Zaback, Esq., State Bar No.2 266498 BERMAN & RIEDEL, LLP 12264 E1 Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 phone: (858) 350-8855 ° fax: (858) 350-9855 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-FILED 4/1/2021 12:00 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 21CV381447 Reviewed By: D Harris SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MARIE ROMERO an individual, by and through her Guardian ad Litem/legal-personal representative, DARLENE D. DRACE, as Plaintiff, V. ALMADEN OPERATING COMPANY LP dba ALMADEN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, a California Skilled Nursing Facility; CHARO LAGUNILLA as Director 0fNursing for ALMADEN OPERATING COMPANY LP dba ALMADEN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, as Defendants. COMES NOW plaintiffMARIE ROMERO an individual, by and through her Guardian ad Litem/legal-personal representative, DARLENE D. DRACE, Who respectfully alleges the following against those defendants named herein: I. Case NO; 21 CV381 447 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES I . Statutory Elder Abuse/Neglect 2. Negligence 3. Violation offhe Patient ’s Bill 0f Rights/Health & Safety Code §1430 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times when the wrongful acts alleged herein were committed, plaintiffMARIE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG ROMERO was a resident under the care 0f ALMADEN OPERATING COMPANY LP dba ALMADEN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER (ALMADEN), a 24-hour skilled nursing facility located in San Jose, California, County 0f San Clara, and was at all relevant times a “dependent adult” and/or “elder” as those terms are defined in California Welfare & Institutions Code §§1561 0.23, I561 0.27. At the time When all 0f the wrongful acts alleged herein were committed, plaintiffMARIE ROMERO was under the direct custodial care, medical care, and supervision 0f defendants named herein. 2. At all times mentioned herein, defendant ALMADEN was, and still is, a business located at 2065 Los Gatos Almaden Road, San Jose, CA 95 124, and was engaged in operating a 24- hour skilled nursing facility under federal laws, as well as the laws of the State 0f California, that govern the operation 0f skilled nursing facilities as licensees. 3. Upon information and belief, and at all times mentioned herein, defendant CHARO LAGUNILLA was, and still is, a resident 0f Santa Clara County, State of California. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff is informed and believes that CHARO LAGUNILLA was employed by, and working in her capacity as the Director 0f Nursing ofALMADEN Where MARIE ROMERO resided. As Director of Nursing, CHARO LAGUNILLA owed independent duties to MARIE ROMERO, pursuant to Federal and State Laws. 4. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown t0 plaintiffs. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, plaintiffs Will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each ofthe fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused by those defendants. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,” or a specifically named defendant refers t0 all named defendants and those sued under fictitious names. 5. At all times mentioned herein, defendants, and each 0f them, were responsible for the care and custody 0f their patient, MARIE ROMERO, When each of the events alleged herein occurred. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that the acts 0f defendants, their officers, 2 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG directors, key facility management, staff, agents, and/or employees were a substantial factor in causing serious personal injury and emotional distress t0 plaintiffs. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times material hereto and mentioned herein, each defendant sued herein, was the agent, servant, employer, joint venture, partner, owner, subsidiary, alias, and/or alter ego 0f each of the remaining defendants and was, at all times, acting Within the purpose and scope of such employment, agency, servitude, ownership, subsidiary, alias, and/or alter ego and with the authority, consent, approval, control, influence, and ratification of each of the remaining defendants sued herein. 7. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction in that the acts giving rise to this lawsuit, which are described more fully below, occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional area and the relief sought through this Complaint are believed to well exceed an amount of $25,000.00. II. GENERAL FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 8. On 0r about December 28, 2019, MARIE ROMERO was admitted to ALMADEN subsequent t0 hospitalization for a cerebrovascular accident. MS. ROMERO was admitted t0 ALMADEN to receive 24-hour care, treatment, assistance, and therapy. Upon her admission, MS. ROMERO presented With additional medical issues, including but not limited to, polyarthritis, chronic pain syndrome, obstructive and reflux uropathy, atherosclerotic heart disease, hyperlipidemia, overactive bladder, flaccid hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, and hypertension. ALMADEN noted that MS. ROMERO did not present t0 its facility with any pressure wounds on her left heel. However, ALMADEN did note upon MS. ROMERO’s admission to the facility that she was at high risk for developing pressure wounds and other skin integrity issues if she was not provided With care and treatment that it knew MS. ROMERO required. Specifically, at the time of MS. ROMERO’S admission to the facility, ALMADEN was aware that plaintiffhad just suffered a cerebrovascular accident, which caused her t0 be completely dependent 0n the staff at ALMADEN for assistance With her basic needs and activities of daily living, including, but not limited t0, supervision, provision 0f medical care, receiving medication, daily hygiene, assistance with transfers, and monitoring. 3 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG 9. ALMADEN staffknew that MS. ROMERO was unable to provide for her own basic needs. ALMADEN staff knew that if they failed t0 provide MS. ROMERO With assistance With her daily needs, she could suffer serious harm. Specifically, defendants were aware that at the time of her admission, MS. ROMERO presented with left sided paralysis as a result of her recent cerebrovascular accident. In fact, ALMADEN documented that MS. ROMERO was at high risk for skin integrity issues as a result 0f her left sided paralysis since she was unable t0 transfer 0r turn in bed independently. As such, ALMADEN was aware that MS. ROMERO would require skin care and monitoring t0 the bony prominences of MS. ROMERO’S body in order t0 prevent harm 0r serious injury t0 MS. ROMERO. As such, ALMADEN was aware that MS. ROMERO would require skin integrity care and wound care in order to prevent harm or serious injury to MS. ROMERO. 10. Despite knowing that it needed to provide care to MS. ROMERO for skin integrity and wound care management, ALMADEN withheld such care. As a result of failing to provide such care, MS. ROMERO developed significant medical complications that eventually resulted in significant hospitalizations, medical treatment, and an above knee leg amputation. Specifically, and as required under law and in practice, ALMADEN failed to: a. Monitor MS. ROMERO’S skin condition; b. Monitor MS. ROMERO’S skin c. Monitor MS. ROMERO’S wound; d. Provide MS. ROMERO With proper nutrition and hydration; e. Treat MS. ROMERO’S skin and wounds in a manner consistent with physicians’ orders; f. Manage MS. ROMERO’S skin integrity and wound; g. Prevent MS. ROMERO’S skin and wound from deteriorating; and h. Notify MS. ROMERO’S physicians of the development and deterioration of her skin condition and wound. 11. As a result of the failures ofALMADEN as outlined above, MS. ROMERO’S skin integrity and wound steadily deteriorated during her admission at the facility. 4 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG 12. Specifically, by on 0r about January 11, 2020, it was noted by ALMADEN for the first time that MS. ROMERO had an unstageable pressure wound 0n her left heel. This is 0f most significance given the fact that MS. ROMERO arrived at ALMADEN With no pressure wound 0n her left heel. 13. Despite now noting the presence 0f an unstageable pressure wound 0n MS. ROMERO’s left heel, and despite now having physician’s orders t0 provide care and treatment to the pressure wound, the condition 0f MS. ROMERO’S wound continued t0 only get worse while under the care and treatment of ALMADEN, an indication that ALMADEN was not actually providing MS. ROMERO with physician ordered care and treatment. Specifically, the dimensions 0fMS. ROMERO ‘s wound kept getting bigger and became infected. Furthermore, this lack of care is further evidenced by incomplete, rote, and/or fraudulent charting that exist throughout the nursing chart that ALMADEN maintained for MS. ROMERO 14. By June 2020, medical personnel note that the left heel wound is necrotic, foul smelling, and exposes the tendons. Despite noting the material deterioration in MS. ROMERO’S left heel wound, ALMADEN does nothing further to provide care 0r treatment for the wound. 15. By July 2020, medical personnel note that the left heel wound has now deteriorated t0 a stage 4 and is now grossly infected With E. coli, MRSA, and Pseudomonas. Despite noting the continual deterioration 0f MS. ROMERO’S left heel wound, ALMADEN does nothing further t0 provide care or treatment for the wound. 16. As a result of the continued lack 0f care by ALMADEN, by October 2020, medical personnel determine that MS. ROMERO now has osteomyelitis (bone infection) of her lower left leg as a result 0fALMADEN not providing care 0r treatment to MS. ROMERO’S left heel pressure would. 17. Because of the osteomyelitis now present in MS. ROMERO’S lower left leg (as a result of the subject left heel pressure wound), Ms. ROMERO underwent an above knee amputation 0f her left leg 0n October 19, 2020. 18. MS. ROMERO’S pain and suffering were the direct result 0f defendant’s reckless neglect and fraudulent conduct in failing t0 provide the care and treatment she deserved. The 5 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG wrongful conduct in this case was both ratified and authorized in that defendants knew MS. ROMERO was at risk for skin integrity issues and the development of pressure wounds, and that MS. ROMERO did indeed develop a pressure wound, and nevertheless defendants Withheld care from her by failing to provide skin care monitoring, skin care assessments, care plans for MS. ROMERO’S known skin integrity issues, and when MS. ROMERO did in fact develop a pressure wound as a result 0f such Withholding of care, ALMADEN continued to withhold care from MS. ROMERO by failing to provide the pressure wound on MS. ROMERO’S left heel the care and treatment that ALMADEN new it needed and was ordered by physicians t0 provide. As a result, MS. ROMERO suffered severe injury, pain, and suffering, Which ultimately resulted in her left leg being amputated. Defendants further ratified/authorized the wrongful conduct by under-staffing and under-budgeting the facility. Plaintiff is fithher informed and believes that such conduct was ratified in that n0 employees were disciplined for their failure t0 provide care t0 Plaintiff. 19. More than just malfeasance, mere oversight 0r professional negligence, the injuries caused t0 MS. ROMERO were the direct result of defendants” failure t0 provide her With the care she required. Indeed, defendants willfully failed to address the obvious need for skin and wound care, as well as failed t0 provide care that was ordered by MS. ROMERO’s physicians. Indeed, the development 0f a pressure wound on MS. ROMERO’S left heel was the direct result of defendants’ reckless, neglectful, and improper failure to provide care and treatment that MS. ROMERO required, the need for which was known to defendants all in direct Violation of California ’s Elder Abuse Act, the Patient’s Bill ofRights, and other State and Federal laws that similarly govern the care t0 be provided at skilled nursing facilities, as well as other general tort principals as pled more fully below. /// /// /// /// /// /// 6 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG III. CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause 0f Action Statutory Elder Abuse; Violation 0f Welfare and Institutions Code § 15600 et seq. (PlaintWMARIEROMERO v. ALMADENHEALTHCAREAND REHABILITATION CENTER, CHARO LAGUNILLA, andDOES 1-50) 20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference every allegation set forth above as though fillly set forth herein. 21. Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 knew that they had a duty pursuant t0 Federal and State regulations and laws, to provide for the care, comfort and safety ofMS. ROMERO, and knew that the life, health, and safety of MS. ROMERO would be at great risk if they failed to carry out such duties. Moreover, defendants and/or DOES 1-50 specifically knew that their failure to comply with such duties to provide proper care for MS. ROMERO would result in serious personal injury, severe emotional distress, and/or death. 22. In particular, and Without limiting the generality 0f the foregoing, defendants, and each of them, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard for the health, safety, and well-being of MS. ROMERO, breached duties they owed to MS. ROMERO by: Count 1 - failing to ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subject to acts 0f abuse, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §1561 0. 07, while under their care and supervision; Count 2 - failing to ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subj ect t0 acts of neglect, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §1561 0.5 7, while under their care and supervision; Count 3 - failing to provide services to MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, I396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code ofRegulations §723 1 I ; Count 4 - failing t0 assess MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 0f the United States Code §§1396i-3, I396r, and Title 22 0f the California Code 0f 7 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG Regulations §723I I; Count 5 - failing t0 ensure MS. ROMERO’S safety from skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, 1396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code ofRegulations §7231 I ; Count 6 - failing to develop a plan of care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues, in Violation of Title 42 0fthe Code ofFederal Regulations §483.25(b)(1), and Title 22 0fthe California Code ofRegulations §72315(/9(7); Count 7 - failing t0 take appropriate preventative measures t0 prevent MS. ROMERO from suffering skin breakdown issues, and its sequelae, including amputation; Count 8 - failing t0 properly train and supervise personnel with regard to caring for patients With skin breakdown issues; Count 9 - failing to monitor and check MS. ROMERO for signs of skin breakdown; Count 10 - failing to care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues; Count 11 - failing to provide MS. ROMERO with skin breakdown care; Count 12 - failing t0 care for MS. ROMERO in a non-reckless manner; and Count 13 - failing to provide care required by MS. ROMERO. 23. The reckless neglect and willful misconduct alleged herein against defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 was actually committed by defendants, ratified by defendants, and/or ratified by defendants’ managing agents, including, but not limited to, defendants” Officers, Directors, Administrators, Director 0fNursing and/or Managing Agents. 24. As a direct and proximate result 0f defendants’ reckless conduct as alleged above, plaintiff MS. ROMERO suffered serious personal injury, emotional distress, and leg amputation, and is thus entitled t0 damages in an amount t0 be proven at the time 0f trial, but in n0 event less than the jurisdictional minimum 0f this court. 25. As a further result of defendants’ reckless, malicious, and oppressive conduct, plaintiff MS. ROMERO seeks statutory recovery of her costs against defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 in bringing this action, under Welfare and Institutions Code §I5657(a). 8 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG 26. As a further result of defendants’ reckless, malicious and oppressive conduct, plaintiffMS. ROMERO seeks an award 0f attorneys” fees against defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 under Welfare and Institutions Code §1565 7(a). 27. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants’ reckless, malicious and oppressive conduct which, as pled above, was done in conscious disregard for plaintiff’ s well-being, plaintiffMS. ROMERO is entitled to an award ofpunitive damages against defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 under Civil Code § 3294, in an amount according t0 proof at trial. Second Cause ofAction Negligence (PlaintWMARIEROMERO v. ALMADENHEALTHCAREAND REHABILITATION CENTER, CHARO LAGUNILLA, andDOES 1-50) 28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference every allegation set forth above as though fillly set forth herein. 29. Upon information and belief, defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 acted negligently with regard to plaintiffMS. ROMERO. 30. Defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 had a duty t0 use reasonable care to provide for the health, welfare and safety of MS. ROMERO. Notwithstanding undertaking such duties, and being paid for providing such care, defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 breached their duties by: Count 1 - failing to ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subject to acts 0f abuse, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §1561 0. 07, while under their care and supervision; Count 2 - failing to ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subj ect t0 acts of neglect, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §1561 0.5 7, while under their care and supervision; Count 3 - failing to provide services to MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, I396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code 9 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG ofRegulations §7231 I ; Count 4 - failing t0 assess MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation of Title 42 0f the United States Code §§1396i-3, I396r, and Title 22 0f the California Code 0f Regulations §723I I; Count 5 - failing t0 ensure MS. ROMERO’S safety from skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, 1396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code ofRegulations §7231 I ; Count 6 - failing to develop a plan of care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues, in Violation of Title 42 0fthe Code ofFederal Regulations §483.25(b)(1), and Title 22 0fthe California Code ofRegulations §72315(/9(7); Count 7 - failing t0 take appropriate preventative measures t0 prevent MS. ROMERO from suffering skin breakdown issues, and its sequelae, including death; Count 8 - failing t0 properly train and supervise personnel with regard to caring for patients With skin breakdown issues; Count 9 - failing to monitor and check MS. ROMERO for signs of skin breakdown; Count 10 - failing to care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues; Count 11 - failing to provide MS. ROMERO with skin breakdown care; Count 12 - failing t0 care for MS. ROMERO in a non-reckless manner; and Count 13 - failing to provide care required by MS. ROMERO. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the breach 0f the afore described duties by defendants ALMADEN, CHARO LAGUNILLA, and DOES 1-50 and all of them, plaintiff MS. ROMERO suffered serious personal injury, emotional distress, medical damages, and other incidental damages, and is thus entitled t0 damages as authorized under law, in an exact amount t0 be proven at the time of trial. /// /// /// /// 10 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG Third Cause ofAction Violation ofHealth & Safely Code § 1430 (Plaintifl‘MARIEROMERO v. ALMADENHEALTHCAREAND REHABILITATION CENTER andDOES 1-50) 32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference every allegation set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 33. As a patient and dependent adult residing within defendant’s skilled nursing facility, ALMADEN owed a duty t0 MS. ROMERO t0 protect her rights as a resident patient 0f the facility, and specifically in compliance With enumerated federal and state regulations for the protection and benefit of resident patients like MS. ROMERO, including, but not limited t0, California Health & Safely Code §§ I430, 1599-15994, as well as regulations contained in Title 22 0f the California Code ofRegulations. ALMADEN knew that the life, health, safety, and physical and emotional well-being ofMS. ROMERO would be at great risk if it failed t0 do so. 34. MS. ROMERO is specifically within the class of persons that California Health & Safely Code § I430 and the above referenced regulations, statutes, and/or code sections were intended to protect. 35. The failure t0 provide care towards MS. ROMERO by ALMADEN constituted breaches of California Health & Safely Code § I430, as well as the above referenced regulations, statutes, and/or code sections, and were done with disregard for the probability that serious personal injury and severe emotional distress would result from its failure to carefully carry out and adhere t0 its duties. ALMADEN knew 0r should have known that there was a high probability that MS. ROMERO would suffer serious personal injury, severe emotional distress, and/or leg amputation from its failure t0 adhere t0 its statutory duties, including, but not limited t0, those duties referenced in the preceding paragraphs. 36. At all times mentioned herein, ALMADEN knew 0r should have known of the existence 0f, and need t0 follow, all state and federal regulations, statutes, code sections, and laws relating t0 the protection ofpatient’s rights, and knew that MS. ROMERO’S health, safety, and well- being were at direct risk whenever it failed to meet these duties. ALMADEN knew that its patterned 1 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG and repeated failure to comply with its duties was in direct Violation of MS. ROMERO’S rights, Which actually occurred. 37. Defendants ALMADEN and/or DOES 1-50 did in fact Violate California Health & Safely Code § I430 and the above referenced regulations, statutes, and/or code sections. In particular, and Without limiting the generality ofthe foregoing, the defendants breached duties owed t0 MS. ROMERO and thereby violated California Health & Safely Code § I430 by, including but not limited to: Count 1 - failing t0 ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subject t0 acts of abuse, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §I561 0. 07, While under their care and supervision; Count 2 - failing t0 ensure that MS. ROMERO was not subj ect to acts 0f neglect, as that term is defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code §I561 0.5 7, While under their care and supervision; Count 3 - failing t0 provide services t0 MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, 1396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code ofRegulations §7231 I ; Count 4 - failing t0 assess MS. ROMERO for skin breakdown issues in Violation of Title 42 0f the United States Code §§1396i-3, I396r, and Title 22 0f the California Code 0f Regulations §723I I; Count 5 - failing t0 ensure MS. ROMERO’S safety from skin breakdown issues in Violation 0f Title 42 offhe United States Code §§1396i-3, 1396r, and Title 22 offhe California Code ofRegulations §7231 I ; Count 6 - failing to develop a plan of care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues, in Violation of Title 42 0fthe Code ofFederal Regulations §483.25(b)(1), and Title 22 0fthe California Code ofRegulations §72315(/9(7); Count 7 - failing t0 take appropriate preventative measures t0 prevent MS. ROMERO from suffering skin breakdown issues, and its sequelae, including death; Count 8 - failing t0 properly train and supervise personnel with regard to caring for 12 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQQUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQONUIhbJNH©©WQONUIhMNHG patients with skin breakdown issues; Count 9 - failing t0 monitor and check MS. ROMERO for signs 0f skin breakdown; Count 10 - failing to care for MS. ROMERO’S skin breakdown issues; Count 11 - failing to provide MS. ROMERO with skin breakdown care; Count 12 - failing to care for MS. ROMERO in a non-reckless manner; and Count 13 - failing t0 provide care required by MS. ROMERO. 38. The statutory Violations of ALMADEN as stated above occurred and violated the patient’s rights of plaintiffMS. ROMERO. 39. As a direct and proximate result 0f defendants’ negligent and/or reckless statutory Violations as alleged above, plaintiff MS. ROMERO is entitled t0 all remedies available under California Health & Safely Code § 1430, including, but not limited to, civil damages of up t0 $500.00 per cause 0f action/Violation in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and assessed by the trier-of fact at such time; attorney’s fees; costs; punitive damages; and an order enjoining defendants from allowing the Violations t0 continue. WHEREFORE based on the allegations set forth above, plaintiffMS. ROMERO prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against defendants, and each 0f them as follows: 1. On each and every applicable cause of action, for all legally recoverable compensatory special, consequential, and related damages, in an amount according to proof as presented at trial of this matter; 2. For un-capped pain and suffering damages, as to all applicable causes of action, in an amount according to proof after due proceedings; 3. For costs 0f litigation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § I565 7(a), as t0 all applicable causes of action, in an amount according t0 proof after due proceedings; 4. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § [5657(a), as t0 all applicable causes of action, in an amount according to proof after due proceedings; 5. For punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294, as to all applicable causes 0f action, in an amount according to proof as presented at trial of this matter; 6. For all remedies available for defendant ALMADEN’s Violations of California 13 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES \OWQONUIhMNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH ®fl¢NMhMNH©©WQQM£MNHG Health & Safety Code § I430, in an amount according to proof, including, but not limited t0, civil damages 0f up to $500.00 (or other legal amount authorized under California law), as assessed by the trier-of fact, as well as an award of attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages, and/or an order enjoining defendants from allowing the Violations to continue, all upon determination 0f due proceedings held in this matter; 7. For interest at the legal rate permitted by law; 8. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 9. For any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted. DATED: March 3 1, 2021 an . a 1re Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES