Contact Information
One World Trade Center Suite 1950 Long Beach, California 90831
Detailed Information

Stephen M. Garcia represents victims of elder and nursing home abuse and is known as one of the leading civil litigators in the country. He is Senior Partner at Garcia & Artigliere, where the firm’s practice is focused on elder abuse, nursing home abuse, and wrongful death of the elderly.

Serving Los Angeles County and other cities nationwide, Garcia has served as counsel in litigation leading to over $1.25 billion in compensation awarded to afflicted parties and consumers across the United States. These cases involved insurance bad faith, medical malpractice, elder abuse, nursing home abuse, and products liability.


Just a few of the notable verdicts and settlements obtained by Garcia include:

  • $38.6 million settlement for a paralyzed young mother, which is the largest settlement under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act in history.
  • The first class action certified, and ultimately settled, for a significant recovery of over one thousand dollars per class member against a Resident Care Facility for the Elderly, for understaffing everywhere in the U.S.
  • $1.25 million settlement on behalf of a Korean War veteran from the Veteran’s Administration. This was one of the “top settlements of the year” as reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
  • Over $25 million in settlements against long-term care providers for rampant understaffing of their facilities.
  • seven-figure recovery for a resident of the Motion Picture and Television Fund’s facility, which allowed a serial sexual abuser to run free until uncovered by Garcia’s efforts.
  • $5.2 million elder abuse trial verdict by a Santa Monica court where a resident suffered 16 falls at a licensed residential care facility for the elderly
  • A verdict of over $5 million for an aggrieved elder in Fresno, California, the largest EADACPA verdict ever in the county.
  • $2.4 million verdict for another aggrieved elder in Fresno County, which was settled as Garcia was about to give opening statement in the punitive damage phase of the trial.
  • Another seven-figure verdict for an aggrieved elder in the Pasadena Courthouse.
  • A “top ten largest punitive damage” of the year verdict for an aggrieved elder, as reported by the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
  • Garcia has served as counsel in matters leading to over 25 seven-figure recoveries for clients


Garcia has served as a legislative analyst on behalf of elders in the State of California regarding legislation affecting the rights and safety of elder and infirm adults and those to whom their care is entrusted. He has testified before the California Legislature in support of legislation advancing the rights and concerns of California’s elders and those to whom their care is entrusted.


Garcia’s appellate efforts include:

  • Authoring the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in the seminal matter of Inclan v. Covenant Care (March 25, 2004 California Supreme Court), wherein the Supreme Court of California distinguished Elder and Dependent Adult abuse claims from those of “professional negligence” confirming his long held belief that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.13 does not apply to elder abuse claims.
  • Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348-1349. There, the Court held that, “[A] violation of staffing regulations may provide a basis for finding neglect. Such a violation might constitute a negligent failure to exercise the care that a similarly situated reasonable person would exercise…”
  • Thrower v. GranCare (2018) 889 F.3d 543, wherein the Court brought an end the frivolous removal of cases against long term healthcare providers to Federal Court.
  • Muccianti v. Willow Creek Care Center (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 13, wherein the Court confirmed that a judgment against a healthcare facility for elder abuse pursuant to EADACPA could not be vacated because there was reasonable probability that interests of nonparties and the public would be adversely affected and the parties’ reasons for requesting reversal did not outweigh erosion of public trust that could result.