On June 23, 2012, plaintiff Etta Flannery, 90, a woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, was given enalapril, Ativan and Risperdal by the nursing staff at Ravenwood Residential Care, a residential care facility for the elderly in Redding. Flannery originally moved into Ravenwood on March 27, 2012, and was treated with enalapril, Ativan and Risperdal, but on May 8, 2012, Flannery’s new primary care physician discontinued the prior treating doctor’s prescription for Risperdal, which is an antipsychotic prescription drug. However, on June 23, 2012, Ravenwood’s nursing staff started to re-administer Risperdal to Flannery. Several days later, on July 3, 2012, a caregiver found Flannery lying on the floor of her room. Flannery was subsequently transferred to a local hospital, where she was allegedly treated for altered mental state, imbalance and facial swelling. Michael Flannery, acting as his mother’s guardian ad litem, sued the owner of Ravenwood Residential Care, Linda Davis, as an individual and as doing business as Ravenwood. Mr. Flannery alleged that that the actions of Ravenwood’s staff constituted physical elder abuse, elder neglect, and battery. He also alleged that the staff’s actions constituted common law negligence and that Davis was liable for her staff’s actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that for several days prior to Ms. Flannery being found on the floor, the nursing staff at Ravenwood gave Ms. Flannery the wrong doses of enalapril and Ativan, as well as re-administered Risperdal, which was not one of Ms. Flannery’s prescribed medications at that time. Counsel also contended that Ravenwood faxed a letter to the office of Ms. Flannery’s treating physician on June 28, 2012, asking for a new prescription, and that the doctor’s office called Ravenwood to orally discontinued Risperdal again. The plaintiff’s primary care physician testified that she refused to resume the Risperdal several days before Ms. Flannery fell, but that Ravenwood staff continued to administer the drug anyway. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the medication log showed that Ms. Flannery received 1-milligram of Risperdal on July 2, 2012, the day before Ms. Flannery was found on the ground. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the use of Risperdal — designated by the Food and Drug Administration as a “black box” drug — for treatment of geriatric patients, even with a valid prescription, is too dangerous and unwarranted. Thus, counsel argued that the imbalance created by the three combined medications caused Ms. Flannery to fall when she got out of bed, resulting in an injury to her face. Defense counsel argued that Ms. Flannery was not given the wrong doses of any medication and that Ms. Flannery was provided her medication only as prescribed. Counsel contended that Ms. Flannery was given the correct doses of enalapril and Ativan and that Ms. Flannery was, in fact, prescribed Risperdal, which was administered consistently with the oral orders of the “on-call” doctor while Ms. Flannery’s primary care physician was out of town during the critical time period. Specifically, defense counsel contended that even if Ms. Flannery’s primary treating physician discontinued the drug on May 8, 2012, the on-call resident orally instructed Ravenwood staff to re-administer Risperdal on June 23, 2012, using the pills that remained in the bottle prescribed by Ms. Flannery’s prior doctor. The med-tech testified that when Risperdal was authorized again, Ms. Flannery received only six .25-milligram pills, which were the amount of pills that remained in the bottle, and then a letter was sent to Ms. Flannery’s current treating doctor’s office on June 28, 2012, asking for a new prescription, after which the office called and orally discontinued Risperdal again. The med-tech also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Ms. Flannery received 1-milligram of Risperdal on July 2, 2012, the day before she was found on the ground, explaining that there was no more Risperdal to give Ms. Flannery at that time. The med-tech further testified that the medication logs were new and that none of the caregivers were accurately completing it. Instead, the med-tech testified that Ms. Flannery received only the medications on the medication control log in the med-cabinet. Defense counsel argued that there was no record in the plaintiff’s primary care physician’s notes showing that Ms. Flannery’s enalapril dosage was supposed to be changed from 20-milligrams to 10-milligrams, which was conceded by the plaintiff’s primary care physician during the trial after the doctor originally claimed she told the plaintiff’s emergency room doctor on July 3, 2012, that the dosage was reduced. Counsel also argued that there was no evidence that Ms. Flannery actually fell and that there was no medical diagnosis supporting a causative connection between Ms. Flannery’s swollen face and the administration of one or more of her prescribed medications. Defense counsel further argued that no medical expert could dispositively state what caused the facial swelling or that Ms. Flannery actually fell., Ms. Flannery claimed she received improper medications, which caused swelling of her face, loss of balance and an altered mental state. After being found on the floor of her room at Ravenwood, Ms. Flannery was taken to an emergency room, where she was admitted for overnight observation, particularly due to her Alzheimer’s and hypertension. Mr. Flannery claimed that his mother fully recovered following her overnight hospitalization and a resumption of her proper medications. Thus, he sought recovery of $24,000 in his mother’s past medical costs and $140,000 in damages for his mother’s pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that that there was no causative connection between Ms. Flannery’s swollen face and the administration of one or more of her prescribed medications. Counsel also argued that Ms. Flannery’s hospitalization was unnecessary and caused by the poor communication of Ms. Flannery’s primary care physician with Ravenwood staff, as demonstrated by Ms. Flannery’s hospital admission as observational.