Elders and dependent adults: abuse or neglect.

Kalra’s proposal would embed a targeted spoliation-based remedy framework into California’s elder and dependent-adult protection law, weaving a conditional shift to a preponderance of the evidence for remedies when a defendant at certain licensed elder-care facilities has engaged in spoliation of evidence. The default liability standard for abuse, neglect, or abandonment remains clear and convincing, but remedies tied to those claims may be evaluated under the lower standard if spoliation is proven. The approach is conditioned on a funding trigger tied to Medi-Cal reimbursement; if the Legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds to cover these costs, the new remedies provisions would become inoperative.

Under the measure, the court may apply the preponderance standard to remedies arising from claims against residential care facilities for the elderly, adult community care facilities, or skilled nursing facilities when spoliation is found and the plaintiff prevails on a discovery motion due to spoliation or a judge or arbitrator determines spoliation has occurred. The court must issue written findings when this shift applies. The remedy framework includes awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (including conservator fees), excludes damages under the usual tort-damages cap but ties total damages to the Civil Code cap, and requires that punitive damages standards for employers be satisfied before any damages or fees may be awarded. The liability standard itself remains unaffected except in the limited spoliation context, and the measure excludes certain facilities, including hospital-operated ones or facilities licensed under alternative provisions.

The new provision provides definitions of spoliation: intentional alteration, concealment, or destruction of records to prevent their production, with material prejudice; it enumerates acts representing spoliation such as destruction before retention periods expire and destruction in contravention of retention policies or preservation directives; records must be material to the claim and required to be maintained by the defendant. Findings must be in writing, and the remedy is cumulative with other remedies. The provision clarifies it does not modify the standard of evidence for other sections. The operative clause ties the provision to Medi-Cal reimbursement funding; if the state is later required to reimburse these facilities for costs and funds are not appropriated, the section becomes inoperative.

Implementation considerations include court-directed written findings, discovery-based triggers, and the narrow scope of facilities affected; the framework aims to incentivize preservation of records and potentially broaden recoveries for plaintiffs when spoliation is proven, while maintaining existing safeguards around damages caps and punitive standards. The fiscal linkage to Medi-Cal funding means practical effect may hinge on budget decisions, and the approach is not intended to impose new reimbursable obligations beyond current rate-setting where funding is provided.