Court sides with Alzheimer’s patients in new judgement

The California Supreme Court ruled that paid home caregivers cannot sue for injuries inflicted upon them by Alzheimer’s patients.

by John Tyburski

Copyright © Daily Digest News, KPR Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

First published at Daily Digest News on August 5, 2014

Home healthcare workers in California have something new to worry about. They may no longer sue Alzheimer’s patients or their families for injuries inflicted by the patients onto the workers. The California Supreme Court considered a case brought against the estate of an Alzheimer’s patient who was known for her combativeness and ruled in favor of the homeowner’s insurance company defending the estate.

Carolyn Gregory was assigned by an agency to care for then 85-year-old Lorraine Cott who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and violent behavior. In 2008, Cott attacked Gregory, and Gregory suffered injuries to one of her hands and wrists while trying to restrain Cott. Gregory received workers’ compensation and sued for damages. The Cotts, however, died before the case was settled, leaving their insurance company to defend their estate.

In a 5-2 decision, California’s highest court said that if the hired caregiver is informed of the patient’s violent nature and associated risks of harm, then the employers are under no liability. The court ruled that violent behavior caused by the patient’s condition is not grounds for a lawsuit since informed workers voluntarily assume the risk involved with caring for the patients suffering from the degenerative brain disease.

“Those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront,” Justice Carole A. Corrigan wrote for the court.

The court ruled in favor of the defense to be “consistent with a strong public policy against confining the disabled in institutions.”

“If liability were imposed for caregiver injuries in private homes, but not in hospitals or nursing homes, the incentive for families to institutionalize Alzheimer’s sufferers would increase,” wrote Corrigan.

As the U.S. population continues to age, the number of Alzheimer’s patients is expected to grow. The court cited this reason for appealing to lawmakers to consider legislation that will address the concerns of home health workers.

Not everyone agreed with the ruling. Two justices dissented, and Alexander J. Petale, Gregory’s lawyer, said that the ruling would have “negative” consequences.

“It allows homeowners to shirk their duties as to rendering their homes safe for those caring for Alzheimer’s patients,” said Petale.