On March 9, 2014, plaintiff’s decedent Brahim Drissi, 91, fell in his room at the Motion Picture and Television Fund’s retirement community, in Woodland Hills. Drissi, who had moderate to severe dementia, was staying in Harry’s Haven, the campus’s skilled nursing facility for dementia patients. Drissi sustained a brain bleed as a result of the fall and died a few weeks later. Drissi’s widow, Paule Drissi, acting individually and as her late husband’s successor-in-interest, sued the Motion Picture and Television Fund, Harry’s Haven, and Motion Picture and Television Fund Long Term Care, which was believed to be a related entity. Ms. Drissi alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence and elder abuse and/or neglect, causing the decedent’s wrongful death. The decedent’s three children, Tomy Drissi, Deborah Drissi and Denes Drissi, were named as nominal defendants. Harry’s Haven and Motion Picture and Television Fund Long Term Care were not proper entities, and were dismissed from the lawsuit prior to trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the Motion Picture and Television Fund should have done more to prevent the fall. Counsel further argued that since Mr. Drissi had a history of falls, the retirement community’s behavior rose to the level of recklessness. The plaintiffs’ retained nursing expert testified that since Drissi had dementia and did not know how to use a call light or other similar device, Drissi had no way to communicate with nurses. The expert opined that the Motion Picture and Television Fund should have placed a pressure pad alarm on the decedent’s bed, which would have alerted staff members to Drissi sitting up in his bed and given them more time to react and prevent the fall. The expert also opined that the defendant should have placed a mat on the floor near Drissi’s bed, which would have allowed Drissi to fall onto a softer surface. The expert further opined that Drissi was neglected by the facility’s staff and that there was no evidence the center’s employees provided Drissi with any care in the 3.5 hours before his fall. In addition, the nursing expert opined that the facility was understaffed and that, according to industry standards, the facility did not have sufficient nursing hours per patient per day. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that someone should have been watching Drissi 24 hours a day. Counsel also noted that Drissi’s room was farthest from the nurses’ station and that Drissi had sustained two prior falls at the facility in 2014, including a hallway fall in February of that year. The nursing expert opined that the facility’s staff members should have suggested to Ms. Drissi after her husband’s February 2014 fall that she hire a private companion to watch her husband at all times. In addition, Ms. Drissi claimed that after she and her son, Tomy Drissi, saw the decedent’s fall in the hallway, she asked the facility’s workers if she could hire a private caregiver for her father. Defense counsel challenged the testimony of the plaintiffs’ nursing expert, noting that the expert had never worked in a dementia facility. Defense counsel also questioned whether a pressure pad or a mat would have prevented the decedent’s fall. Counsel argued that a pressure pad is not designed to prevent falls and that it wouldn’t have made a difference unless a nurse was right outside the decedent’s room when the alarm went off. Counsel further maintained that a pressure pad is overly sensitive and would have gone off every time Mr. Drissi moved slightly in bed. Defense counsel argued that as a result, a pressure pad or mat was not appropriate or healthy for dementia patients. Defense counsel similarly maintained that a floor mat is not appropriate for dementia patients because those patients do not have the proper safety awareness to react to the mat. Counsel contended that Drissi could have, instead, tripped over a mat, especially if he attempted to get out of his bed in the dark. Defense counsel also argued that Drissi was not neglected and that nursing records showed that Drissi received medications, breakfast and a bed bath in the hours prior to his fall. Counsel further pointed to testimony from a nurse at the facility who said that she saw Drissi 15 minutes before the accident. In addition, defense counsel argued that the facility had more than adequate staffing numbers and that the plaintiffs’ expert had not calculated the number of nursing hours per patient per day properly. The plaintiffs’ expert later changed her testimony to say that while there were normally five certified nursing assistants working at the facility at a time, there were only four CNAs on duty on the day of the fall. Defense counsel countered that while the facility did use to have five CNAs on duty at a time, it went down to four CNAs two months earlier, when the number of residents at the facility decreased. Defense counsel additionally maintained that since Drissi and other dementia patients cannot communicate with medical staff, nurses are taught to be proactive and to know when patients need to be fed or taken to the bathroom. Counsel further maintained that CNAs are not typically at the nurses’ station, so it didn’t matter where Drissi’s room was in relation to the station. The defense’s nursing expert opined that the defendant’s staffing was more than adequate and that the facility had appropriately given Drissi a low bed and a tab alarm to reduce his chances of falling. The expert also opined that there were no other appropriate interventions the facility could have put in place and that watching dementia patients 24 hours a day is not required under the accepted standard of care. In addition, defense counsel disputed Ms. Drissi’s claim that she asked for a private caregiver for her husband after she and her son saw Mr. Drissi fall in the hallway. According to defense counsel, Tomy Drissi stated in his deposition that he never saw his father fall at the facility., Drissi’s fall triggered his tab alarm, causing the licensed vocational nurse to respond to his room. A registered nurse was also called into the room, and she determined that Drissi had no visible . Drissi was then brought to a table outside of the nurses’ station so that the staff could keep an eye on him. He was given lunch while at that table, but he began to vomit. A registered nurse also noticed some discoloration on Drissi’s jaw and forehead. An ambulance was called to the scene, and Drissi was transferred to West Hills Hospital and Medical Center, where he received a CT scan. Doctors ultimately determined that Drissi had a subdural hematoma and a subarachnoid hemorrhage. However, because of Drissi’s age and underlying conditions, there was nothing the doctors could do to repair the injury. Drissi was transferred to Keck Medicine of USC, in Los Angeles, that same day. The medical center’s doctors confirmed the diagnosis and agreed that there was no way to treat the brain . Drissi was stabilized and then sent back to the Motion Picture and Television Fund facility a few days later. Following his return to the Motion Picture and Television Fund home, Drissi was placed in hospice care, and he passed away at the facility on March 25, 2014. He was 91 years old. Drissi was survived by his wife, Paule Drissi, and by his three children, Tomy Drissi, Deborah Drissi and Denes Drissi. Both parties agreed that even if Mr. Drissi had been taken to the hospital immediately after the fall, there would have been no change in the patient’s outcome. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that, based on the average life expectancy for 91-year olds in America, the decedent would have lived another four years, if not for the subject fall. Drissi’s estate sought recovery of damages for Drissi’s pain and suffering from the time of his fall until his death. Ms. Drissi sought recovery of damages for her loss of comfort, care and society. In addition, the plaintiffs sought recovery of punitive damages. The defense’s geriatrics expert opined that, based on Mr. Drissi’s dementia and other underlying conditions, Drissi would have only lived approximately six more months, regardless of the fall.