A daughter’s fight for justice over her mother’s treatment in a skilled nursing facility has reached a legal impasse. On June 13, 2022, Hai-Jin Shin filed a complaint against the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and its local representative, Wise & Healthy Aging (WHA), in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The case was presided over by Judge Douglas W. Stern and involved allegations of constitutional violations and statutory duties.
The roots of this legal battle trace back to June 2020, when Sun Hyang Shin passed away at Country Villa Wilshire Healthcare Center amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Her daughter, Hai-Jin Shin, acting as her successor in interest, accused the defendants of failing to investigate claims of mistreatment at the facility under Welfare and Institutions Code section 9712.5. Furthermore, she alleged that they violated Sun Hyang's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by not providing a translator for executing an advance healthcare directive designating Hai-Jin as her healthcare agent instead of her brother Dong Won Shin.
Despite these serious accusations, the trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to Hai-Jin's second amended complaint without leave to amend. The court found that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred federal claims against state agencies unless consented by the state. Additionally, it ruled that section 9712.5 did not create a mandatory duty for investigation and there was no private right of action for equal protection or due process violations under California's Constitution unless tied to established common law or statutory actions.
Hai-Jin contended that these conclusions were erroneous but faced significant hurdles in her appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on multiple grounds. It highlighted that standing is crucial in equal protection claims; since Hai-Jin herself admitted that Sun Hyang did not need a translator, she lacked standing to claim injury from any alleged discriminatory policy regarding translators.
Moreover, the court emphasized that section 9712.5 grants discretion rather than imposing a mandatory duty on ombudsman representatives to investigate complaints. This discretion is underscored by provisions allowing them not to investigate if deemed unnecessary and notifying complainants accordingly—a safeguard indicating discretionary power rather than obligatory action.
In terms of relief sought, Hai-Jin aimed for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all similarly situated patients or residents in skilled nursing facilities—an effort stymied by procedural and substantive legal barriers throughout her litigation journey.
Representing herself as both plaintiff and attorney was Hai-Jin Helena Shin from the Law Office of Hai-Jin H. Shin. Defending the case were Rob Bonta, Attorney General; Jodi L. Cleesattle, Assistant Attorney General; Catherine A. Woodbridge; and Kyle Da Silva from Deputy Attorneys General office.
The case ID is B330937 with judges Weingart J., Rothschild P.J., Kelley J., presiding over its conclusion affirming defendants' stance without leave for further amendments.