The Kaiser Papers - A Public Service Web SiteIn Copyright Since September 11, 2000
This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Permission is granted to mirror this web site -
Please acknowledge where the material was obtained.

Please NOTE:  The material on this page consists of copies of court documents and pre-published articles specific to the death of Victorino Noval.  The intent of posting this material is for documentarian purposes.

The death of Victorino Noval at Kaiser Permanente -

Victorino Noval Kaiser victim and Hector A. Noval his Personal Representative and son

Kaiser hospital ignored the power of attorney of Victorino Noval and terminally extubated him.  This was all done without consulting his son, Hector Noval, despite the fact that Kaiser had an executed durable power of attorney (DPOA) for health care naming Hector and his sister, Lourdes Frost, as co-attorneys in fact. - See more at:
And this was all done without consulting his son, Hector Noval, despite the fact that Kaiser had an executed durable power of attorney (DPOA) for health care naming Hector and his sister, Lourdes Frost, as co-attorneys in fact. - See more at:

Mr. Noval wanted to live and Kaiser records indicate that Mr. Noval who had developed pneumonia was recovering and would be returning home and would be going back to work.    Instead the staff was lied to by the daughter who convinced them that Hector, the  son of Victorino was in agreement with her.  This was not true and Kaiser did not verify the statement.  Instead Kaiser terminally extubated him and he died within minutes from lack of oxygen and a morphine overdose. The sibling who lied to Kaiser inherited several million dollars.  

On November 4, 2016 the Orange County, California court granted Kaiser and it's employees "use immunity" and ordered them to testify.  Kaiser staff had previously stated that they were going to "plead the fifth" and not testify unless they were granted immunity from criminal prosecution.  Additional information to understand this process:
1.   Oct 13, 2016 from Attorney Casey T Young to Riverside County, CA District Attorney regarding Request for Statement from the District Attorney Objecting to "Use Immunity."
2.  October 17, 2016, 2016 - Motion for Protective Order Granting "Use Immunity"...
3.  October 18, 2016 - Opposition to Motion for Protective Order Granting "Use Immunity"..... (with some evidence displayed)

Victorino Noval, the victim of this murder, came to this county legally in 1961 with $24 in his pocket. He mopped floors at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles and lived in a "boarding house" with 36 men to a bathroom, surviving on hard boiled eggs and a pack of cigarettes per week until he could save enough money to pay for his young family to join him in America (and pay for the medical care his infant son needed to survive chronic bronchitis). He then saved enough money to lease space and open a sandwich shop.  He penny-pinched until he could purchase the space he was leasing. 

He kept pennypinching until he could purchase more properties. Eventually, by his late 70s, through a lifetime of hard work, frugality, intelligence, and perseverance, he had amassed a real estate portfolio worth $60 million.

By April 2010, his health was what you would expect from a bluecollar 78 year-old. He had stopped smoking in 1976, but as a result of his past tobacco use had moderate COPD, which he managed with medication. He was 6 ft, 265 lb, and he loved double doubles, animal-style, from ln-N-Out Burger. He had a tremor  in his hand that was diagnosed in 2009 as early stages of Parkinson's disease, and he had just been diagnosed with onset diabetes. However, he saw his family physician regularly and managed all of his conditions. Anecdotally, every Sunday he walked a 95,000 square foot commercial
property he owned.   He went to Las Vegas and walked a 165000 square foot commercial building that was for sale. He had a colonoscopy and passed it with flying colors, and he received a traffic ticket, 80 miles from his home, driving to-and-from his account's office where he had been discussing his taxes.

On April 28, 2010, he was admitted to the lntensive Care Unit at Kaiser hospital in Riverside with pneumonia.  His family consisted of an ex-wife (divorced circa 1989) and four children (two sons, Victor and Hector, and two daughters, the defendants, Tania and Lourdes). While in the hospital, his two daughters, the defendants, went to his home emptied his safe, and took his property, including cash and checkbooks (and they forged a $5,000 check). It was well-known that he had upwards of $400,000 in cash in his safe at the time. While at the home, the defendants retrieved Victorino's "durable power of attorney for health care" ("DPOA"). They read it and understood that it named their brother, Hector, as "joint agent" for all health  care decisions. This meant that no health care decisions could be made (i.e., changed) without Hector's consent. Probate Code 4202(b). The defendants concealed this DPOA from Hector, knowing that Hector would always act in his father's best interests.

Armed with this DPOA, the defendants appeared at the hospital and ordered the Kaiser staff to discontinue Victorino's treatment and end his life. Over the course of several days, and in the face of Victorino's "material improvement" the hospital staff did as the defendants told them to do. While the defendants were ordering the discontinuation of treatment, they appeared at a family meeting that Hector had called at his lawyer's office. The defendants told Hector's lawyer that no DPOA existed, but that they would ensure that Victorino's treatment would continue indefinitely.   What they were concealing in this meeting was that they had been using the DPOA at the hospital to schedule the discontinuation of Victorino's treatment for the very n
ext day.  Depending on your interpretation of the medical notes the hospital staff either knew Hector had not consented and was covering it up for the defendants, or they simply didn't care about Hector's desires and were satisfied following the directions of the defendants regardless of the ethical and legal consequences that would follow.

The concealment of the DPOA continued after Victorino's death. When the defendants appeared at Holy Cross Cemetery and Mausoleum the following business day to have Victorino's body embalmed and buried without an autopsy, the Holy Cross staff stated that Hector, as "joint agent" in the DPOA, needed to sign the burial contract. The defendants forged Hector's signature on the contract to avoid having to disclose it to him. Then for nine months, they kept the DPOA from him while they engaged in "probate." It was not until additional lawyers got involved that the DPOA was disclosed. As soon as this happened the defendants took $200,000 from probate and retained lawyers for themselves.

Malice and fraud are always deliberate, and the malice and fraud in this case is overwhelming. The defendants had no less than five opportunities to disclose the DPOA to Hector during this hospitalization. They never did once. This was done to deliberately deprive their father of his right to have his son make his health care decisions for him. The defendants then lied to both the Kaiser staff and Hector. On one hand, they told Hector that the treatment would continue indefinitely. On the other hand, they told the Kaiser staff that they had obtained Hector's consent to end treatment. They lied to both sets of
people in order to have their father killed. This constitutes premeditated malice with the intent to kill.

When Victorino died and Hector discovered what happened at the home, he filed an "lncident Report" with the San Bemardino County Sheriffs Department. The following year, when he discovered the DPOA, the homicide, and the forgeries, he filed a "supplement" to fhe "lncident Report." The San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department, Detective Jeffery ToIl, consulted with the District Attomey's Office and "determined the investigation would be best suited in the city of
Riverside due to location of the decedent's death and location where decisions were made pertaining to health care decisions in order to determine if this is a homicide" The case file was sent to Riverside police Department Detectives James Brandt and/or David Amador.  Their investigation was stifled because neither of the defendants would sit for an interview, nor would anyone on the Kaiser staff.  Eventually, the Riverside County Distict Attorney's Office chose to close the case. This has never stopped Hector from pursuing his civil remedies, on behalf of his father's estate, and he will never stop
using the judgments he obtains in these civil cases to illustrate to the Riverside County District Attomey's
Office how, and why, this case should be prosecuted criminally.

.......The defendants could have never done what they did without the assistance of the Kaiser staff.  For their role in the murder, the Kaiser staff's criminal liability is apparent.  .........  There are dozens of state regulations and internal policies and procedures in place at Kaiser to prevent this very tragic, irreversible situation from taking place.  The United States Supreme Court has even authored an opinion describing the due diligence required and the clear and convincing evidence needed, before a hospital staff can do what the Kaiser staff did here. ......Yet, the Kaiser staff disregarded virtually
every one of these state regulations and internal policies and procedures in order to kill Victorino at the behest of the defendants. As the medical records illustrate,  once they determined that they were going to follow the defendants' orders and kill Victorino, they did not spend a single moment trying to reach out to Hector, the "Joint agent"  for his "consent." Instead, four individuals spent a total of 3 hours and 45 minutes at their computers the day before the murder contriving false excuses for why they were not going to reach out to Hector. This illustrates "implied malice" beyond any reasonable doubt.  Synopsis written by Casey T Young, attorney representing Plaintiff Hector Noval.  Filed with court  Oct 18, 2016. Case No. 30-2012-00620923, Honorable Ronald L Bauer, Judge, Department CX103

In order to help the reader keep the relationships between the parties clear Mary Cummins has prepared a family tree chart.  This tree is located online at:
Noval tree prepared by Mary Cummins

Medical Expert Opinion as to cause of death of Victorino Noval:


Mr. Hector Noval  immediately contacted criminal investigating authorities and also filed suit against Kaiser.  Kaiser staff have indicated that they wish to assert their right to Fifth Amendment priviledge against incrimination to avoid providing testimony which they believe may incriminate them.  The arbitrator has billed over $100,000.00 to date to Kaiser.
  Court filings are below in order by most recent date of filing:

March 17, 2016 -
This is a document which modifies a August 7, 2014 Respondent's Motion to Stay the entire action.  This order was set to terminate on May 14, 2016.  Due to the ongoing criminal investigation  of respondents in connection to the death of Victorino Noval, the arbitrator, Robert A Rees has stayed the entire action indefinitely.  The arbitrator also requests that all parties split the fees and pay them.  He has declared the case as extraordinary and therefore, under Rule 24(c) there is no time limit for the case.  Beginning July 1, 2016 the arbitrator expects to quarterly receive a report advising the arbitrator "whether there is either  an ongoing criminal investigation into this subject matter or a communication from the appropriate prosecuting agency that it does not intend to pursue criminal charges related to the death of Victorino Noval.

March 10, 2016 -
Declaration of Brenda Ligorsky Regarding Status of Potential Criminal Investigation for the above referenced matter.
Kaiser has retained criminal defense lawyers and has admitted there's a criminal investigation. DECL.pdf

March 7, 2016 -
Notice of Motion And Motion For Authority To Disinter, Remove and Reinter Body Buried At Cemetery For Purposes Of Performing An Autopsy; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof. for Temporary Disinterment.pdf

March 3, 2016 -
Response from Arbitrator regarding Kaiser Attorneys subpoenaes demanding information from the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department and/or San Bernardino Police Department  involving all criminal investigations related to any repondant related to Victorino Noval. FOR INFORMATION.pdf

February 29, 2016 -
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Transfer And Consolidate Related Cases; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion; Declaration In Support  - C.C.P.  403, 404.1, 1048(a) CRC 3.400(a)-(b), 3.500
Hearing Date: May 10, 2016 to Transfer and Consolidate.pdf

February 18, 2016 -
Letter to Casey Young, Attorney  from  Brian K Condon of Arnol.d & Porter, LLP.  
Kaiser does not want to coordinate the two active civil lawsuits - that of the sisters in Superior Court and that of SCPMG and Dr. Bradburne.

February 11, 2016 -
Letter from Casey Young, Plaintiff Attorney to Mr. Kays and Ms. Ligorsky - Kaiser Represenation regarding an attempt to "meet and confer" before filing a motion/petition for "coordination" of the Elder Abuse and Wrongful Death of Victorino Noval:
Noval v. Frost, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30--2012-00620923
Noval v. Kaiser, et al.; RSC Case No. 1201608

January 21, 2016 -
Kaiser generated subpoena for Production of Business Records from the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department.
Any and All Police, Incident, Crime Reports and Records.  Including but not limited to any Records/Documents that may be stored
Digitally and/or Correspondence pertaining Hector A Noval aka: Hector Noval -------, regardless of date. January 2016 Subpoenas.pdf

April 24, 2015 -
Answer to Complaint for Physical Elder Abuse -
Case No. 30-2012-00620923
Unlimited Civil

Defendants Lourdes Frost ("Frost") and Tania Noval ("Noval"), for themselves, and for no other Defendant, answer the "Complaint for Physical Elder Abuse, etc. filed by Hector Noval on or about December 28, 2012. to Complaint.pdf

December 29, 2014 -
Time Stamped Confirmation for Filing by One Legal LLC -

December 2014 -
Reply to Opposition to Petition to Vacate Arbitration, Declaration in Support Reply

December 2014 -
Declaration of Casey Young, Esq. in Support of Reply to Opposition to Petition to Vacate Arbitration
Note:  Respondent's (Kaiser) Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication is included in this document as Exhibit 2.

December 1, 2014 -
Petition to Vacate with Time Stamp

Memorandum of Points and Authorities with Time Stamp

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibits 3 and 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibits 7 and 8 and 9.pdf

November 11, 2014 - further documents of importance to this case involving the murder of an elderly and still highly productive citizen.
Ruling Part 1 of 2

Noval v. Kaiser Opposition to Motion to Stay Action

Preliminary Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

November 9, 2014 -
Update on the Victorino Nova Elder Abuse Arbitration - The Arbitrator has stayed the case until May of 2016.  This means that this arbitration will take at the least four years to complete.  The reason for this stay is that the defendants are concerned about potential criminal prosecution which could arise from staff testimony.   All are now asserting their Fifth Amendment Rights against Self-Incrimination until the six year criminal manslaughter and perjury statute of limitations has run.  The Plaintiff objected but the Arbitrator granted the stay.  The Arbitrator vacated the arbitration date citing conflicts with his own personal case load.  The Arbitrator to date has billed over $100,000 in fees - $103,185.31.
Please read the new filing with Exhibits attached including billing at:

On February 2, 2012 a lawsuit was filed against Kaiser for 
negligence, wrongful death, fraud, elder abuse, lack of informed consent and medical battery. - See more at:
negligence, wrongful death, fraud, elder abuse, lack of informed consent and medical battery.
The original court filing is here:
and at

The following articles have been archived here for historical purposes

from: The Law Med Blog:

Lawsuit: Sisters Have Hospital Kill Multi Millionaire Father For Inheritence - See more at:

The following article is from:
A copy of the actual filing may be viewed here:
and at

Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital - Victorino Noval Kaiser victim and Hector A. Noval his Personal Representative
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (CN) -

     A son claims a Kaiser hospital ignored his wealthy father's power of attorney so the plaintiff's greedy siblings could collect multimillion-dollar inheritances.

     Hector Noval sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and affiliates, a doctor and two social workers on behalf of his father, Victorino Noval, who died in May 2010 after a "terminal extubation." Noval says his father had been involuntarily admitted to Kaiser's intensive care unit for pneumonia on April 28, 2010, while suffering from early-stage of Parkinson's and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

     Before being hospitalized, Noval, 78, "lived in his own home, drove his own vehicle, and performed his own activities of daily living," according to the Superior Court complaint. "He was worth $60 million and had annual income of $3 million. He made investments and controlled his finances. He suffered from no neurological deficiencies. He did not have dementia or diminished capacity, He functioned independent of others. He was in no way nearing death, an irreversible coma, or a persistent vegetative state. Upon hospitalization, he only required temporary oxygen support while the pneumonia infection in his lungs cleared and he regained his strength. His condition was no more serious than that."

     However, Hector Noval says, two of his sisters, Lourdes Frost and Tania Noval, told Kaiser doctors, "falsely and fraudulently," that their father had "'advanced' Parkinson's disease" and had been declining for 6 months before his hospitalization.

     He claims that his siblings' false and fraudulent statements included "that he 'would not want to be hooked to a machine like a ventilator,' even if just temporarily, and that 'he had expressed this to [his] daughter both when he is well, and when not so well.' Frost and Noval told defendants that decedent 'would not [have] wanted to be resuscitated if he is to pass away ... he would want to die peacefully if that was to happen.' Each of these statements were untrue. Defendants performed no diligence into their veracity and accepted them as true."

     Neither sister is named as a defendant.

     Plaintiff Noval claims that on the day his father was admitted, April 28, 2010, he "expressed his desire that decedent be transported to Cedar Sinai in Beverly Hills, California for treatment and that he not be treated at Kaiser. Defendants acknowledged these desires but refused to honor them." (Emphasis in complaint.)

     Noval says he has three adult siblings. He says his sisters Lourdes Frost and Tania Noval "desired decedent's death to collect their multimillion-dollar inheritances." He claims that Tania Noval "had a pre-existing relationship with [defendant social worker Anthony] Tapia.

     Hector Noval claims that after his father was "sedated for comfort," Frost filed with Kaiser a copy of their father's durable power of attorney for health care, dating from July 1999. He says the power of attorney named him and Frost as their father's attorney in fact, and that California law required the defendants to get consent from both of them to make health care decisions for their father.

     But he says, "Defendants did not of this. They never disclosed the DPOA [durable power of attorney] to plaintiff or advised him of his rights or responsibilities therein. Neither did Frost or [defendant] Noval. Plaintiff was never made aware of the DPOA or his rights and responsibilities therein."

     In the days that followed, Hector Noval says, his father's doctor, defendant Richard Bradburne, and social worker Tapia met with his sisters and discussed their father's condition, medical outlook and quality of life.

     On May 3, he says, Dr. Bradburne prescribed "1-2 more weeks of continued aggressive treatment for the decedent. Plaintiff was at Kaiser at the time and again requested that defendants transport decedent to Cedar Sinai or a like facility. Defendants refused. They never disclosed the DPOA or discussed it with plaintiff, and plaintiff went unaware of his rights in the matter."

     Hector Noval claims that on May 4 his sisters "met with Tapia and told him that 'the entire family' desired terminal extubation, i.e. the withdrawal of treatment and death. 'The entire family' did not desire terminal extubation. Frost and [Tania] Noval instructed Tapia to contact a Catholic priest to visit [Victorino] Noval and read his last rites. Tapia did so. Tapia then communicated to defendants that the 'family' desired terminal extubation. No one contacted plaintiff or informed him that any of this was taking place. "Plaintiff was unaware of all of this," according to the complaint.

     Hector Noval claims that when he entered the Kaiser hospital on May 5, "Tapia appeared with security at the entrance and had plaintiff searched by security for weapons. No explanation was given. Tapia then took plaintiff to a conference room and told him that decedent was going to be terminally extubated the following day. He gave plaintiff no explanation for the change in treatment and didn't discuss the DPOA with plaintiff or advise plaintiff that he was a 'joint agent' for health care decisions and had the authority to prevent, delay, or postpone it."

     Hector Noval says he asked that terminal extubation be delayed and asked again that he father be sent to Cedars Sinai. The complaint states: "Tapia tried convincing plaintiff otherwise but ultimately agreed to communicate his request to delay extubation and said he would 'continue to follow up' with plaintiff and have 'continued conversations' with him 'regarding treatment and terminal extubation.' This was plaintiff's only conversation with Tapia regarding treatment and extubation. They never spoke again despite Tapia's promise.

     "Plaintiff left and retained counsel.

     "Tapia recorded in decedent's medical file that 'the entire family is in agreement with the terminal extubation except now [plaintiff] showed up today and is causing conflict.' He also recorded that plaintiff 'had history of substance abuse and paranoid personality.' Neither statement was true, and neither was discussed with plaintiff. Tapia wrote them in the record after hearing them from Frost and {Tania} Noval and without performing any diligence or due care into their veracity." (Brackets, but not braces, as in complaint.)

     Noval says Tapia "spread these misstatements to defendants, including Bradburne, who wrote in decedent's medical record: 'family discussion, all siblings except one son [plaintiff] and wife are in agreement [regarding terminal extubation] ... the son in disagreement [plaintiff] is a habitual drug user/addict and his judgments and motives are likely not sound in the context of acting as a surrogate decision maker.'" (Brackets as in complaint.)

     Hector Noval adds: "One single telephone call to plaintiff or related effort would have cleared the matter. Yet no defendant sought to communicate directly with plaintiff. He was unaware these allegations were being made about him."

     The complaint continues: "Bradburne has since apologized for the medical record, stating that Tapia 'had informed me at some point that this information [about plaintiff] had been alleged.' 'That is not a fair statement actually [about plaintiff].' 'I'm making a statement of fact there and that's not true.' 'The keyword that's left out of that sentence is "alleged."' ... He said 'frankly, I regret writing that way.'" (Brackets, but not ellipsis, as in complaint.)

     Hector Noval claims that he called a meeting with the sisters on the evening of May 5. He says his sisters produced a will and a trust, and told him to "stop complaining about decedent's death because he'd inherit millions of dollars."

     At the meeting, Hector Noval says, he and his lawyer demanded that no terminal extubation take place without his knowledge and consent and that when reasonable, their father be taken off sedation so he could communicate his wishes and direct his own care. He claims that both sisters "agreed to honor these demands. This was plaintiff's and counsel's last communication with Frost and/or Noval before decedent's death."

     Hector claims that on May 6, his two sisters met with Kaiser, and said "that plaintiff had 'threatened violence' the evening before and that they were 'afraid' of him. These were false and fraudulent misrepresentations designed solely to discredit and disparage plaintiff and convince defendants to terminally extubate pursuant to their instructions."

     He claims that had any of the defendants "made one single telephone call to plaintiff or related effort, they would have discovered the allegations of violence were untrue, that plaintiff had retained counsel, and that Frost and Noval were committing egregious fraud and fraudulent concealment to accomplish their father's death."

     On May 6, Hector says, the defendants referred this "true conflict" to defendant Dan Wilson, "a 'bioethics director' and/or on the 'bioethics committee' at Kaiser, to perform an analysis into how to handle decedent's health care going forward."

     Hector claims Wilson interviewed his sisters - but not him - "and concluded plaintiff was in a 'clearly impaired condition' and that Kaiser should proceed with terminal extubation at the desires of 'joint agent [Frost] and the remaining family members.'" (Brackets in complaint.)

     Hector says that Wilson never met with him, never communicated with him, and that no one at the hospital ever informed him of Wilson's involvement or conclusions.

     "Plaintiff believed, instead, from his discussion with Tapia on May 5 that Kaiser would communicate with him before terminal extubation, and from his discussion with Frost and [Tania] Noval on the evening of May 5, that Frost and Noval would not seek terminal extubation without obtaining plaintiff's expressed consent beforehand," the complaint states. (Brackets not in complaint.)

     Hector claims that on May 6, "Frost told Tapia that she was traveling to a meeting with plaintiff and his counsel and that the family 'plans to move forward with the extubation [the next day].' This was a false and fraudulent misrepresentation. There was no such meeting ever scheduled with plaintiff and his counsel, and plaintiff was never in agreement with extubation." (Brackets in complaint.)

     Hector claims that by then his father had shown "material improvement in his health condition," which Dr. Bradburne noted. He claims Bradburne noted, "'currently, [he] does not meet the ordinary criteria for extubation.'" (Brackets in complaint.)

     Hector adds: "Bradburne never communicated any of this to plaintiff."

     He claims that in a sworn deposition Bradburne was asked if extubation could have been postponed. "He said 'Absolutely,'" the complaint states. "He said that if anyone, including plaintiff, sought postponement, he would have done so. When asked how long he would have postponed extubation, he said 'Now till the cows come home.'" Hector claims that on May 7, moments before his father's terminal extubation, Bradburne told his sisters that their father's condition had further improved: that the pneumonia was clearing, his temperature had returned to normal, the ventilator had been replaced with a CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure] mask, "which meant there were no tubes, just a mask over his mouth and nose", that his father was "in no distress," with normal heart rate, stable blood pressure, and that he was "'awake to voice with eye opening and eye contact for more than 10 seconds.'"

     He says Bradburne gave his sisters "the opportunity to postpone extubation at that moment. They declined."

     Hector says Bradburne tasked Wilson with ensuring that he, Hector Noval, was aware of his father's terminal extubation and that he was still in favor of it. Hector says that Wilson never contacted him; he simply asked Frost.

     "(A)ccording to his note in decedent's medical file, '[Frost] confirmed that her brother Hector has agreed to follow family wishes regarding extubation and has decided not to be present at actual event,'" the complaint states. (Brackets in complaint.)

     Hector says that after his father's breathing tube was removed, Victorino Noval "maintained spontaneous breathing and satisfactory oxygen saturation (93-97%) on this 'simple mask.'" He says Bradburne again gave his sisters the opportunity to postpone their father's death. He says both sisters declined, and Bradburne quadrupled Noval's morphine "to quicken his death" and "effectively ended oxygen support".

     Hector says his father died 4 hours and 40 minutes after being extubated, "after 85 minutes fighting to survive with effectively no oxygen and heavily sedated."

     Hector says he learned his father had died when he arrived at the hospital for a visit that evening. He says his sisters told him that Kaiser "had done all they could and that the decedent had passed away in spite of active treatment, not because of any withdrawal of treatment or terminal extubation."

     "At that point there was no reason to believe any wrongdoing had taken place," the complaint states. "Plaintiff had no knowledge of DPOA, no knowledge of the allegations of Frost and [Tania] Noval to defendants, and no knowledge of defendants' withdrawal of treatment and terminal extubation. He wasn't even aware of decedent's material improvement over the final days of his hospitalization. No one had communicated any of this to him. The only communications he received were from Frost and [Tania] Noval representing that decedent was gravely and terminally ill, that he was in agony, and that there was no likelihood of survival." (Brackets not in complaint.)

     Hector says he learned of the durable power of attorney after his sisters' attorneys produced it with other estate planning documents they had been concealing. Only then, he says did he order his father's medical records from Kaiser and discover the facts.

     Hector claims that in sworn depositions, both Bradburne and Tapia stated that Kaiser's policy is "to do all that is necessary to inform healthcare agents of their rights and responsibilities under a DPOA. They described past incidents wherein they would even search distant states and foreign countries for health-care agents and would even reach out to health-care agents through intermediaries and agents-of-the-agent. They testified with no doubt that defendants would go to great lengths to communicate with healthcare agents about their rights and responsibilities under a DPOA. It's that critical to a patient's care. Yet in this instant matter, defendants knew plaintiff, had his contact information, spoke to him and/or his family members multiple times, and had every opportunity to communicate with plaintiff about the DPOA and his rights and responsibilities therein, and they failed to perform even minimal diligence and due care in doing so. They undoubtedly wanted to believe Frost and [Tania] Noval and 'buried their heads in the sand.' This directly and legally caused the death of a relatively healthy, wealthy man with many more years left to live and love." (Brackets not in complaint.)

     Hector Noval seeks damages and punitive from all the defendants on claims of willful misconduct, negligence, elder abuse, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful death.

     He seeks damages from Kaiser and Tapia for fraud and false promise; and damages from Kaiser and Bradburne for medical battery and lack of informed consent.

     The corporate defendants are Kaiser Foundation Health Plant, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group.

     Hector Noval is represented by Casey Young of Newport Beach.