Ten days ago, I wrote a post about COVID litigation and how it was not only mounting but also morphing in terms of scope. Cases were predominantly focused on responsibility for infections at the senior living end such as, my ‘family member’ caught COVID at XYZ Manor and died, so therefore XYZ Manor is responsible for his/her death. That post is here: https://rhislop3.com/2023/10/16/sr-living-litigation-and-covid-implications/
Yesterday, in an important decision, criminal complaints against Silverado Senior Living were dismissed, including against Silverado officials named in the complaints. Silverado is a California based company that primarily owns and operates, Assisted Living and Memory Care facilities.
The charges were filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office against the company and three of its executives. They included thirteen felony accounts of endangerment (seniors) and five felony counts of wrongful death or death.
The charges allege that in March 2020, Silverado broke its own infection prevention protocols by admitting a retired Manhattan surgeon from a New York City psychiatric unit into Silverado Beverly Place (memory care facility) in Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges that Silverado Beverly Place did not test the man for COVID-19 and did not quarantine him once he began showing signs of illness. Silverado was accused of failing to prohibit entry of individuals who had traveled within 14 days to or from confirmed COVID-19 hot spots such as New York.
As a result of Silverado’s actions (or lack thereof), according to the charges, the community experienced a COVID-19 outbreak where 45 employees and 60 residents became infected with COVID and 14 residents, died.
Per Silverado, the judge dismissed the charges notably indicating wonderment as to why the District Attorney pursued the case(s) when the legal system was already overwhelmed by more pressing matters.
Silverado stated its caregivers “prioritized” the lives of residents during the pandemic. The company said it “established protocols adopted by memory care providers and referenced by public health departments, licensing and other agencies throughout the country for employers and healthcare environments”.
What is most notable with this case is that it lays foundation for perhaps, future criminal and civil litigation involving wrongful death and negligence claims, especially arising from the early periods of the pandemic (March 2020 to September 2020). Very little about COVID was known at the time and very few overall policies and precautions typically used for other pandemics, would have been effective in controlling the spread of COVID. Supposition at the time regarding isolation periods, the ability to contact trace, and the methodology of spread among asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals have since been proven wrong.
TGIF! I’ll watch for additional information on this case to come forward, especially any official court records regarding the dismissal. It appears from all information that the charges were summarily dismissed but the judge’s reasoning will be the most interesting and potentially impactful information arising from this case. The AP story version is here: https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/news/silverado-vindicated-from-egregious-unfounded-charges/article_6a85911f-3e24-554e-9594-9c3f4035355b.html