Kravitz v. State of California
| Decision Date | 28 May 1970 |
| Citation | 87 Cal.Rptr. 352,8 Cal.App.3d 301 |
| Parties | Alvin S. KRAVITZ and Jo Ann Mary Kravitz, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The STATE of California et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9584. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Alvin S. Kravitz and Jo Ann Mary Kravitz (plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment of dismissal after the sustaining of a demurrer to a second amended complaint without leave to amend as to the defendants State of California (State) and certain of its employees who are on the medical staffs of Atascadero State Hospital and Metropolitan State Hospital.
The action was to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of Deborah Ann Kravitz (Deborah).
The facts alleged in the second amended complaint or in official records of which the trial court took judicial notice are these:
Plaintiffs are the parents of Deborah, who died on April 4, 1967, in Orange County, as the result of a brutal assault on that date at the hands of Nicholas William Toce (Toce).
On January 18, 1962, Toce had been committed to Atascadero State Hospital (Atascadero), of which defendant S. W. Morgan, M.D. was medical director and superintendent, under Penal Code, section 1026, by the Superior Court in Los Angeles County when the court found Toce to have been insane when he committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and an assault with intent to commit murder.
Toce was admitted to Atascadero on January 30, 1962, where he remained until August 11, 1966, when he was transferred to Metropolitan State Hospital (Metropolitan).
On August 11, 1966, also, Dr. Morgan sent to the Superior Court in Los Angeles a follow-up report on Toce and information as to his transfer to Metropolitan.
On September 8, 1966, Metropolitan's superintendent and medical director, George Y. Abe, M.D., by the assistant superintendent, George A. Maculans, M.D., informed the court in Los Angeles that it was the opinion of the superintendent that Toce 'is no longer insane and has improved to such an extent that he is no longer a menace to the health and safety of others.' He recommended that, under paragraph 1026a of the Penal Code, and paragraphs 6727.5 and 6761(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Toce be released.
adopted the reports, found Toce to be no longer insane and terminated the proceedings.
The minutes do not indicate whether Toce was present in person; they do show the presence of the district attorney and the public defender.
The third cause of action of the second amended complaint alleged Toce was in the home of his parents in Orange County from September 1, 1966 until after April 4, 1967.
In charging defendants with liability, it is alleged upon information and belief that State, Morgan, Abe, Maculans and two other medical staff members at Atascadero negligently and carelessly provided incomplete and inaccurate information concerning their testing, evaluation, treatment, prescription for and supervision and management of Toce to the Superior Court for Los Angeles County; and that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence of defendants Toce was released by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and shortly thereafter killed Deborah.
The Los Angeles court seems to have entered a minute order shortly before November 7, 1966 that it be furnished a report as to Toce's then mental condition. In response, Maculans wrote to the court in Los Angeles on November 17, 1966:
'Mr. Toce was transferred to our hospital from Atascadero State Hospital on August 11, 1966. Since admission he has been in good contact with reality. He has been cooperative with the treatment program, has done well in his industrial assignment and has had seven home visits to his parents. We had no reports of any undesirable activities while the patient was on home visits.
The question whether the plaintiffs did or could state a cause of action depends upon the respective functions and duties of the court and the hospital superintendent in a proceeding under section 1026a, Penal Code, for the release of a person committed under section 1026 of that code; and, secondarily, upon the meaning and applicability of the statutes defining and limiting the tort liability of public entities, in relation to the release of such persons.
Section 6761 (), Welfare and Institutions Code, provided:
'A person committed to a state hospital under the provisions of Section 1026 of the Penal Code shall be released therefrom only upon determination that his sanity has been restored, as provided in Sections 1026 and 1026a of the Penal Code, except as otherwise expressly provided in subdivision (b) of this section.'
Section 6761(b) provides for prior court approval of the parole by the hospital superintendent of a person committed under section 1026, Penal Code. While the superintendent of Metropolitan recommended Toce either for parole or release, the action taken by the court was to order Toce's release under section 1026a, Penal Code.
Under that section the court may order the release of a person committed under section 1026, upon application by the patient or the superintendent of the state hospital in which the patient is confined upon the ground such person's sanity has been restored, if the court finds that to be true.
By contrast with a proceeding under section 1026a, a person committed to a state hospital under the provisions of chapter 6, title 10, part 2 of the Penal Code, must be delivered from the hospital upon the certificate of the superintendent that the person has recovered, approved by the superior court from which the patient was committed.
Although reports of hospital officials are required to be furnished in some other cases, such as of persons committed under chapter 2, part 2, division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, no statutory duty is imposed to furnish reports on the condition of a person committed under Penal Code, section 1026. However, the court, in a proceeding conducted pursuant to Penal Code, section 1026a, may request or order the production of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
...for failure to make an examination, or, if an examination is made, to the adequacy of the examination. 4 In Kravitz v. State of California, 8 Cal.App.3d 301, 87 Cal.Rptr. 352, the defendant doctors of two state hospitals, also named as defendants, released a mental patient on the basis of t......
-
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.
...v. Weimer, 268 F.2d 860 (7th Cir.1959); In re Scott Cy. Master Docket v. Scott Cy., 618 F.Supp. 1534, 1575 (D.Minn.1985); Kravitz v. State, 8 Cal.App.3d 301, 87 The Court of Appeals found Bader distinguishable, arguing: "Such immunity certainly would not apply to an expert retained by a par......
-
Kemp by Wright v. State
...failed to obtain a medical examination of an intoxicated prisoner who later committed suicide) and Kravitz v. State of California, 8 Cal.App.3d 301, 306, 87 Cal.Rptr. 352 (Ct.App.1970) (Cal. Gov't Code § 855.6 provided immunity to staff of state hospital for its inadequate examination of a ......
-
Collins v. Cnty. of San Diego
...the explicit purpose of determining Collins's need for medical treatment.14 The County also looks to Kravitz v. State of California (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 301, 87 Cal.Rptr. 352 ( Kravitz ) to support its position. In this tragic case, a young girl was killed by a man recently released from a s......