Daily Blast August 4, 2014

The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Gregory v. Cott (August 4, 2014, S209125) __ Cal.4th __, analyzing the liability of Alzheimer’s patients to their in-home caregivers. The California Supreme Court held that Alzheimer’s patients are not liable “to in-home caregivers who, like their institutional counterparts, are employed specifically to assist these disabled persons.” (Slip opn., p. 1.)

This case arose out of injuries sustained by plaintiff, a home health caregiver, when a long-time Alzheimer’s suffering patient approached plaintiff, bumped into her and reached toward the sink while plaintiff was washing a large knife. When plaintiff attempted to restrain the patient, she dropped the knife, which struck her wrist causing injury. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability, with a claim against the patient for battery. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment. A divided Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. (Slip opn., pp. 1-2.)

On review, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The court extended the primary assumption of risk doctrine to bar tort liability cases by “professional home health care workers who are trained and employed by an agency” to care for Alzheimer’s patients. (Slip opn., pp. 9-10, 14.) The court explained that “[it] is settled principle that those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront.” (Id. at p. 1.) There is no distinction of harm faced by in-home caregivers and those employed in institutions. (Id. at p. 13.) “This conclusion is consistent with the strong public policy against confining the disabled in institutions. If liability were imposed for caregivers injuries in private homes, but not in hospitals or nursing homes, the incentive for families to institutionalize Alzheimer’s sufferers would increase.” (Id. at pp. 1, 20.) Further, the court determined that this “does not preclude liability in situations where caregivers are not warned of a known risk, where defendants otherwise increase the level of risk beyond that inherent in providing care, or where the cause of injury is unrelated to symptoms of the disease.” (Id. at pp. 1-2.)

Finally, the court “encourage[d] the Legislature to focus its attention on problems associated with Alzheimer’s caregiving” acknowledging that the “number of Californians afflicted with this disease can only be expected to grow in the coming years.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Accordingly, we might expect to see legislative changes on, “[training] requirements and enhanced insurance benefits for caregivers exposed to the risk of injury” in the future. (Ibid.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate