A lawsuit brought against Los Angeles County on behalf of a mentally challenged man who was admitted to the hospital in 2021 for an ulcer of the esophagus and allegedly subjected to excessive force by staff members can proceed to trial, a judge ruled Thursday.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley denied a motion by county attorneys to dismiss Marcelus Laidler’s suit, eliminating only his claim for civil rights violations and his request for punitive damages.
Addressing one of Laidler’s causes of action, for battery, Crowley said the plaintiff “met his burden to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether (the county) acted with an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact.”
The judge cited a sworn statement by plaintiff’s trial expert Leslie Dobson, who said that the county “failed to confirm the needs for and orders for imposition of restraints and failed to appreciate that there was no basis for these restraints on multiple occasions.”
In addition to my clinical and forensic psychology experience, Dobson — a psychologist — has written and implemented restraint policies at an administrative level for state hospitals and the Veteran’s Administration health care system inpatient units.
Other causes of action which Laidler will take to the scheduled Oct. 12 trial include assault, violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, negligence, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Laidler’s mother and conservator, Debra Legans, brought the lawsuit on her son’s behalf in June 2022. Laidler, who has an underlying diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was hospitalized at what was then known as Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center from May through October, 2021.
From June 2021 until his release, Laidler was allegedly placed in restraints multiple times and that many of those times such measures were not “clinically indicated.”
“The hospital repeatedly applied violent 4-point restraints over weeks and months, often while Mr. Laidler had open wounds, and in ways that a reasonable jury could find violated federal patients’ rights rules, the hospital’s own restraint standards and basic custodial care duties,” Laidler’s attorneys stated in their court papers.
County lawyers contend that the restraints were proper because he was a danger to himself and others.
“All of plaintiff’s care and treatment, including the use of restraints, was appropriate and met the applicable standard of care at all times,” county lawyers stated in their pleadings.
The county attorneys cited the deposition testimony of their own expert witness, psychiatrist David Braff, in which he said that “No act or omission by defendant caused or contributed to plaintiff’s claimed injuries.”