Department of the Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board

• Decision Date: 09 July 2003
• Docket Number: C038427.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF THE YOUTH AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; PAMELA KING, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Page 1

DEPARTMENT OF THE YOUTH AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; PAMELA KING, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

C038427.

Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District.

Filed July 9, 2003.

Sacramento. Super. Ct. No. 00CS01433.

DAVIS, J.

A youth correctional officer employed by the Department of the Youth Authority (Department), real party in interest Pamela King (King), failed to disclose in her preemployment health questionnaire that she had twice been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. King's hospitalizations came to light six years later, when she submitted to a psychiatric evaluation after she filed a workers' compensation claim for stress. The Department concluded King had intentionally falsified her responses on the health questionnaire, and dismissed her for dishonesty.

The State Personnel Board (the Board) reversed the Department's action and ordered King reinstated. The Board found that King's failure to disclose her prior hospitalizations was not intentionally dishonest. The Board also found the Department violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) and King's right to privacy under article I, section 1, of the California Constitution by using medical information the Department obtained through King's workers' compensation claim to dismiss her. The Board designated its decision as a precedent, meaning the decision contained a significant legal or policy determination of general application upon which the Board could rely in future cases. (Gov. Code, §§ 19582.5, 11425.60.)

The trial court denied the Department's petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) The Department appeals from the judgment denying the petition, and contends the Board erred in concluding that King's privacy rights were violated, and abused its discretion in compelling the Department to retain a dishonest law enforcement employee.

We conclude, under the applicable standard of review, that substantial evidence supports the Board's factual findings that King was not dishonest. This obviates the need for us to examine the constitutional and statutory privacy issues, although we register three caveats regarding the Board's precedential decision on these matters. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Backdrop

In 1981, King checked herself into the psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was suffering from depression caused by extreme stress from her job as a surgical nursing assistant. She stayed in the hospital about a month, and was treated with antidepressants, lithium and sleep medication.

In 1982, King was hospitalized again for depression-related symptoms, this time at the initiative of her parents. She spent slightly more than a month in the hospital on this occasion.

In 1991, King applied to the Department for a job. During preemployment screening, potential Department employees are asked to complete a health questionnaire.¹ On that questionnaire, King answered "no" to the following questions:

"Have you ever had or do you have the following [P] . . . [P]

"12. Mental illness or nervous breakdown" [P] . . . [P]

"41. Have you ever been hospitalized? If yes, list the reason and date of hospitalization[.] [P] . . . [P]

"43. Have you ever had any other illness, injury or physical condition not named above which required treatment as an outpatient or where surgery was recommended (exclude common minor illnesses, e.g., colds, flu, etc.)?"

King was hired and became a youth correctional officer at the Department's Ventura School facility. This is a peace officer position.

In 1997, King filed a workers' compensation claim for stress arising from alleged sexual harassment. The workers' compensation claim form completed by King asked: "Before this accident did you ever suffer from any injury or disease?" King checked the box marked "yes" and indicated that she had been treated in a hospital for job-related stress in 1981-1982.

King was sent to a state-appointed psychiatrist for evaluation. The psychiatrist told King that the usual doctor/patient confidentiality did not apply, but he did not tell King that he would send a report to the Department, nor did he obtain a written authorization from King allowing him to release medical information. King told the psychiatrist the details of her two psychiatric hospitalizations and also disclosed that she had undergone two cesarean section deliveries and other medical procedures. In a written report, the psychiatrist relayed to the Department what King had told him.

When the Department received the psychiatrist's report, it launched an investigation into whether King had disclosed her psychiatric hospitalizations during the preemployment screening.

A Department investigator interviewed King concerning her responses on the health questionnaire. At the outset, he informed King that if she refused to answer his questions, she could be disciplined for insubordination. The investigator did not have a copy of King's health questionnaire, so he read aloud from a blank form similar to the one completed by King.

When he read question 41 aloud to King ("have you ever been hospitalized?"), she responded that she had been hospitalized and described the circumstances. King explained she had previously answered "no" to question 41 because she "didn't think it applied to [her]"; she had misunderstood the question to ask whether she had been hospitalized for a reason defined in the preceding series of questions, or during a defined period (not including 1981 and 1982). She also indicated she thought the question referred only to surgeries.

The investigator questioned King closely about the reasons for her psychiatric hospitalizations. King responded that prior to each hospitalization she had suffered from depression and mood swings. She told the investigator her hospitalizations were "stress-related," but she "didn't think [they] amounted to a mental illness or a nervous breakdown" as those words are used in question 12. King denied that her answers to the health questionnaire were intended to conceal her hospitalizations or to deceive the Department.

The investigator concluded that King had falsified her responses to the health questionnaire, and the Department terminated her employment.

King's dismissal notice stated that, in light of her dishonesty in answering questions 12, 41, and 43, she was being dismissed from her position for "fraud in securing appointment" (Gov. Code, § 19572, subd. (a)); dishonesty (Gov. Code, § 19572 , subd. (f)); "discourteous treatment of the public or other employees" (Gov. Code, § 19572, subd. (m)); and "failure of good behavior" of such a nature as to "cause[] discredit to the appointing authority or the person's employment" (Gov. Code, § 19572, subd. (t)).

The Administrative Proceedings

King appealed her dismissal and the matter was heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) appointed by the Board. The only factual issue before the ALJ was whether King had dishonestly failed to state on her health questionnaire that she had been hospitalized in 1981 and 1982.

Asked about those psychiatric hospitalizations, King testified that on both occasions, she knew that "something was going on with [her]." The first time, her coworkers let her know that she "needed to be seen professionally" and King recognized that she was "stressed." On the second occasion, her parents initiated the involuntary commitment because they believed she was suicidal: she "hadn't been eating regular" and "had some kind of chemical off balance."

Although the health questionnaire is normally completed with a proctor available to answer questions about the form, King testified she completed it at home and thought she had completed it correctly. She explained that, at the time she completed the form, she had received no medical training on the definition of "mental illness," did not know the definitions of "mental illness," "nervous breakdown," or "depressed," and had never been told she had a mental disorder or emotional breakdown. At the hearing, King insisted she still did not regard her hospitalizations as treatment for a mental illness, nervous breakdown or psychiatric problem. King explained she had answered "no" to question 12 because she didn't think the words "mental illness" or "nervous breakdown" "applied to [her]"; answered "no" to question 41 because she wasn't hospitalized for any of the reasons enumerated in questions 1 through 40; and answered "no" to question 43 for "the same reason. I hadn't had any outpatient treatment for any of the above."

To provide further evidence that King's answers resulted from misunderstanding rather than deceit, King's attorney introduced evidence that King has difficulty comprehending what she reads. King required special help with her studies at the Department's training academy because she experienced difficulty learning vocabulary, mastering certain concepts, and performing on written tests. Her early performance evaluations likewise indicated that she needed to improve her writing and record keeping. After she lost her job with the Department, King had her reading comprehension skills assessed. She was informed she has a learning disability, and a demonstrable difficulty with reading and comprehension.

A Department personnel analyst who handles preemployment health screening testified that she would expect a candidate who had been twice hospitalized in a psychiatric ward to answer "yes" to question 41.

The superintendent of the Department facility where King worked testified that, had King disclosed her prior hospitalizations on her health questionnaire, she would not necessarily have been denied employment by the Department, but would have been further investigated.

The ALJ's Proposed Decision

The ALJ recommended that King's dismissal be revoked, and that she be reinstated.

...