An act to amend Section 15657 of, and to add Section 15657.02 to, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to elders and dependent adults.
Summary
AB 251 amends California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act to create a new evidentiary rule for certain elder-abuse and neglect claims. Under existing law, plaintiffs generally must prove liability by clear and convincing evidence to recover enhanced remedies such as attorneys’ fees, costs, and certain damages. This bill allows a court to lower that burden to a preponderance of the evidence when the defendant has engaged in spoliation of evidence, as defined in the bill, in claims seeking remedies under Section 15657.
The new rule applies only to claims against residential care facilities for the elderly, adult community care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities, with exclusions for certain hospital-operated facilities and some licensed facilities under Health and Safety Code section 1254. The bill defines spoliation as intentional improper alteration, concealment, or destruction of evidence done to prevent production of the evidence and that materially prejudices the other party. It also requires the court to make written findings when applying the lower standard and states that the remedy is cumulative with other available remedies.
Impact
AB 251 changes the evidentiary framework for a subset of elder and dependent adult abuse cases by allowing plaintiffs to proceed under a preponderance standard when a facility defendant has spoliated evidence. It amends Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 and adds section 15657.02, while leaving the standard unchanged for cases brought under Section 15657.03. The bill affects litigation practices for residential care facilities for the elderly, adult community care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities, and it may increase exposure to liability, attorneys’ fees, and damages in cases where records are intentionally destroyed or concealed. The bill also includes a Medi-Cal reimbursement/inoperability safeguard, declaring that it does not impose a new reimbursable mandate unless a final determination requires reimbursement and the Legislature fails to appropriate funds.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support, with multiple committee and floor votes passing by comfortable margins in both houses. The measure ultimately became chaptered, indicating it cleared the Legislature and was signed by the Governor. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits direct insight into debate, but the recorded votes show broad, though not unanimous, support.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the bill’s effect on litigation against long-term care facilities and whether lowering the evidentiary standard in spoliation cases could increase liability exposure for providers. Opponents likely focused on the potential burden on residential care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities, while supporters likely emphasized fairness and accountability when defendants destroy or conceal evidence. A secondary issue is fiscal exposure: the bill includes a reimbursement/inoperability clause tied to Medi-Cal costs, reflecting concern that the change could create state reimbursement obligations if deemed a new mandate.