This week the California Supreme Court handed down its opinion in *Gregory v. Cott*. Here is an excerpt from Justice Corrigans majority opinion: [begin excerpt] The question in this case is whether patients suffering from Alzheimers disease are liable for injuries they inflict on health care workers hired to care for them at home. Because agitation and physical aggression are common late-stage symptoms of the disease, injuries to caregivers are not unusual. California and other jurisdictions have established the rule that Alzheimers patients are not liable for injuries to caregivers in institutional settings. We conclude that the same rule applies to in-home caregivers who, like their institutional counterparts, are employed specifically to assist these disabled persons. It is a 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. This conclusion is consistent with the 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 Alzheimers sufferers would increase. [end excerpt] Another excerpt from the majority opinion: After weighing the public policies involved, we agree with those sister-state jurisdictions which have concluded that workers compensation, rather than tort recovery, is the appropriate means of compensating hired caregivers for injuries caused by Alzheimers patients. Here is how Justice Rubins dissenting opinion closes: [begin excerpt] This is a hard case involving sad facts. As the majority notes, the Legislature and society at large may be well served by turning their attention to the problems associated with caring for Alzheimers patients. Whatever the solutions to those problems, I do not believe they should be at the expense of in-home caregivers who risk a physical injury by working on the front line, typically for low pay and few benefits. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. [end excerpt] The complete 14-page set of majority and dissenting opinions is online at: Ken Pope 3 COGNITIVE STRATEGIES THAT DENY, DISCOUNT, & DISMISS TORTURE: HOW INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, GOVERNMENTS, & CULTURES ENABLE TORTURERS: Edward R. Murrow: Who owns the patent on this vaccine? Jonas Salk [who developed an effective vaccine during the polio epidemic, which each year was paralyzing or killing more than 500,000 people around the world during the1940s & 1950s]: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun? --CBS Television interview, on See It Now (12 April 1955)
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:19:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015