Plank v. Mount

2012 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 6774 (2012)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Plank v. Mount

California Court of Appeal
2012 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 6774 (2012)

Facts

Tanya Mount (defendant) and her son, Joaquin Renteria, lived with and cared for Tanya’s father, George Mount. George had strong views about refusing end-of-life treatments and being able to stay in his own home. For instance, George refused efforts to even diagnose possible prostate cancer because he did not want treatment even if he had cancer. Ramona Plank (plaintiff) was also George’s daughter. Ramona’s son, Alexander Plank, was close to George and visited him several times per month. However, Tanya discouraged Ramona from visiting George. The last time Ramona visited George, she claimed that Tanya had yelled at George to clean up dog feces that Ramona found in the house. Approximately two months before George’s death, George could still walk and feed himself. However, George’s health declined to the point that his doctor said that George could die at any time. After hearing this, George declined any further medical treatment. A month later, George became bedridden but was still lucid. Two weeks before George died, during one of Alexander’s visits with George, George complained about pain and having trouble breathing and sleeping. Alexander brushed accumulated skin flakes out of George’s bed and thought that George’s room smelled stale. After that, Tanya obstructed Alexander’s efforts to visit. The last week of George’s life, George stopped being able to feed himself, and Tanya fed him soup and a nutritional-supplement drink. A home nurse visited George and noted that he (1) was dehydrated and malnourished, (2) had bed sores starting, and (3) had not received any hospice care to ease his pain and suffering. The nurse arranged for hospice care to start the next day. However, George died that night. An autopsy revealed that George had died of undiagnosed lung cancer. Ramona filed a complaint for elder abuse against Tanya and Renteria, alleging that they had neglected George by allowing him to become dehydrated and malnourished and by failing to get him hospice care to help him avoid some of his pain and suffering. The trial court heard evidence and dismissed the complaint. Ramona appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ramirez, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 825,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership