Families who lose a loved one to a rehab overdose death can seek support, even when the victim is assigned some blame for what happened.

Partial fault and bearing no fault are very different things. Partial fault for a negligent facility still means that families can win substantial support for the loss of a loved one.

Facility owners and a patient may each be assigned a percentage of blame for a tragic accident. Families could still be awarded financial compensation, but it would be reduced partially by the percentage of fault the victim was assigned.

Using Comparative Fault to Secure Support for Families

Families who lose a loved one to an overdose in a rehab are empowered to file a lawsuit and seek support for their loss. This wrongful death support can cover funeral expenses, leftover medical costs, and the income a loved one may have provided the family.

In some cases, the deceased is assigned some of the blame for a tragic accident, but this doesn’t mean families have to give up on seeking justice.

Under California Case Law, business owners and victims can share the blame, and each can be assigned a percentage of fault. California’s concept of “pure comparative negligence” means that victims (or their families) can seek support, even if a victim is found 99% at fault for what happened.

If the facility bears any amount of liability (even 1%), a family can win support. However, the award a family receives in a wrongful death claim would be reduced by whatever percentage of fault a patient was assessed.

Comparative negligence could play into a rehab overdose case, but families should know that this is often a weak argument for rehab owners. As we’ll see, it’s difficult for owners to put part of the blame on the victim, due to the extreme responsibility they have to care for and protect any patient they admit.

Example of Comparative Negligence in an Overdose Death

In a simple example, let’s say that a judge assigned drug rehab owners 50% of the liability in an overdose death. This might be for the negligence the staff showed in identifying an overdose and the lack of a quick response.

For this example, we’ll suppose that the deceased was assigned 50% of the blame for not disclosing they had just taken drugs before being admitted, and for sneaking drugs into the facility.

In this example, families could file a wrongful death claim and receive a settlement or judgment in court. But under comparative negligence, their award would be reduced by the 50% fault assigned to their loved one.

See: Who is allowed to file a wrongful death claim in California?

Comparative Negligence Is a Weak Argument for Drug Treatment Centers

It must be noted that drug rehab facilities trying to use comparative negligence as a defense to block some liability don’t often succeed.

This is due in large part to the “duty of care” that detox centers and rehab clinics owe their patients.

Legally, they must protect them from harm and provide a safe environment. That duty is often magnified by the doctrine of “special relationship” between a healthcare provider and a vulnerable patient. This leaves treatment centers even more accountable for the well-being of patients.

When facility lawyers try to claim that a patient should be given some blame for an overdose, they must overcome the fact that an overdose usually means the facility staff failed in their care and surveillance of the patient.

For every attempt to blame a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) patient for something they did, care providers must answer as to why they allowed it.

• A patient snuck Fentanyl into a facility – Facility security is supposed to do a full search of the patient and belongings at intake
• A patient purchased benzo in facility – Facility security and staff are supposed to keep all drugs out of a treatment center
• A patient overdosed on a drug – Facilities should never leave a patient alone long enough to overdose
• A patient died after overdosing – Facilities should never let a patient go unchecked for long enough to overdose and die

Every way facility lawyers try to blame your loved one will usually be for something the facility was responsible for preventing. A skilled California Rehab Facility Wrongful Death Lawyer can help your family collect evidence of this negligence and fight back.

An Attorney Protects Your Family in a Comparative Negligence Case

A facility may try to blame your loved one for a heartbreaking overdose. Their lawyers may say that your loved one died due to an unpreventable medical emergency. But you don’t have to accept their word for it.

Your lawyer will fully investigate your loved one’s death and collect all evidence. Then your lawyer will fight to make sure your loved one receives as little blame as possible, leaving your family able to secure the maximum support.

Zero Liability for Patients: Of course, in most cases, the patient actually deserves no share of the blame at all. If that’s the case, your attorney gets aggressive to see that a judge gets the full picture of what happened (the facility’s negligence) and can fairly rule that the drug program should bear all of the liability.

Contact a California Negligent Rehab Lawyer

A patient who dies while in the care of a drug rehab facility is not to blame. You may feel you are the only one standing up for your loved one and pointing to their innocence. You aren’t alone.

Attorney Martin Gasparian offers a free, confidential consultation to families who lost a loved one. It’s a no-risk, no-obligation way to find out what a wrongful death case would be worth and how to hold a negligent treatment center fully responsible.

No Upfront Costs: What’s more, if you do need our help, you don’t need any money to hire us. Mr. Gasparian isn’t paid unless he wins your case for your family. Then, his attorney’s fee is paid out of the settlement a negligent facility must provide.