Frankland v. Etehad and the Boundary Between Professional Negligence and Elder Abuse in California
Published: August 12, 2025
Case: Frankland v. Etehad, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, B338370, Aug. 8, 2025
Why This Case Matters for California Elder Abuse Law
In California, the distinction between medical malpractice and statutory elder abuse is critical. Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, (“the Act” and codified at Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.) certain claims allow for enhanced remedies, including attorney’s fees and pre-death pain-and-suffering damages without MICRA caps. The Act excludes an elder’s claim for injury or damage against a healthcare provider based solely on the healthcare provider’s alleged professional negligence. (§15657.2)
The recent decision in Frankland v. Etehad reinforces that negligent medical care alone by a doctor providing care to an elder residing in a skilled nursing facility does not equal statutory “neglect” or “financial abuse” unless the defendant doctor also has a “robust” custodial or caretaking role.
Case Summary: Frankland v. Etehad
The plaintiff alleged that a physician provided substandard medical treatment to an elder in a skilled nursing facility. Claims were brought for: 1) Neglect under the Act, 2) Financial abuse under the Act, 3) Negligence, and 4) Wrongful death.
The defendant doctor demurred arguing that Plaintiff’s claims failed because Dr. Etehad lacked a caretaking or custodial relationship with decedent.
The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment on the physician’s demurrer.
No “neglect” under the Act. The court held that “neglect” requires a substantial or “robust” caretaking or custodial relationship. It is the “substance” of the relationship and not simply the defendant’s “professional standing” as a physician that informs the nature of the relationship. If a doctor’s engagement, conduct, or role with the elder in a skilled nursing facility, nursing home, or house is limited, circumscribed, intermittent, or episodic, then the engagement with and the elder doesn’t to the level of caretaking or custodial care required to impose liability under the Act.
No “financial abuse.” The court held that Plaintiff could not prove a financial abuse claim as the claim was based solely on alleged professional negligence, which the statute excludes from its definition. (§15657.2)
Professional negligence applies. The court held that the claim remained within the realm of malpractice, subject to MICRA limits.
Understanding the Legal Line: Malpractice vs. Elder Abuse
Professional Negligence (Medical Malpractice) in California
- Governed by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) which limits certain damages and attorneys’ fees. This Act was updated in 2022.
- Typically involves a duty of care limited to medical diagnosis, treatment, or advice to a patient.
- Does not trigger the Elder Abuse Act unless the provider assumes a substantial or robust custodial role.
Elder Abuse / Neglect Under California Law
- The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act enumerates several examples of the first component of “neglect,” such as the failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter, the failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs, the failure to protect from health and safety hazards, and the failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.
- Defendant must have a robust or substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with the elder, which is not temporary, intermittent, episodic, nor merely based on a person’s role as a physician.
- Requires proof of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, not mere negligence.
Plaintiff-Side Strategy Post-Frankland
To survive a demurrer, plead:
- Custodial role facts. Show the defendant was responsible for the elder’s day-to-day needs.
- Specific failures. Detail neglect beyond clinical mistakes (e.g., lack of food, hygiene, or protection).
- Elevated culpability. Allege reckless disregard or intentional misconduct.
- Causation and harm. Connect the neglect to specific injuries or harm.
Defense-Side Strategy Post-Frankland
When moving to dismiss elder abuse claims:
- Highlight absence of custodial relationship. Argue the role was purely clinical.
- Emphasize statutory exclusion. Cite §15657.2 barring professional negligence from elder abuse claims.
- Point to lack of elevated fault. Note the absence of recklessness or malice allegations.
- Use Frankland as precedent. Reinforce the clear boundary between malpractice and elder abuse.
Key Takeaway for California Lawyers
Frankland v. Etehad is now a pivotal citation for cases straddling malpractice and elder abuse. Plaintiffs must plead custodial facts and reckless conduct to reach statutory elder abuse. Defense counsel should press early on role definition and fault level to keep claims in the malpractice realm