Martin v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs

• Decision Date: 26 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 06-16850.,06-16850.
• Parties: Estate of Dorothy MARTIN; and Mary Martin, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, a California Public Corporation; Bruce Thiesen, individually and as Secretary of the California Department of Veterans Affairs; George H. Andries, Jr., individually and as Deputy Secretary for Veterans Homes; Marcella McCormack, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Yountville; John Heltsly, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Barstow; and Tom Arnold, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Chula Vista, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

560 F.3d 1042

Estate of Dorothy MARTIN; and Mary Martin, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, a California Public Corporation; Bruce Thiesen, individually and as Secretary of the California Department of Veterans Affairs; George H. Andries, Jr., individually and as Deputy Secretary for Veterans Homes; Marcella McCormack, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Yountville; John Heltsly, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Barstow; and Tom Arnold, individually and as Administrator of Veterans Home of California, Chula Vista, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16850.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 13, 2008.

Filed March 26, 2009.

Chad Carlock, Law Offices of Chad Carlock, Davis, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

John Ruocco, California Department of Veterans Affairs, Sacramento, CA, for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CIV-02-02334-DFL-GGH.

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, HARRY PREGERSON,^* and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Graber; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs, the Estate of Dorothy Martin and Mary Martin, Dorothy's daughter, claim that Defendants the California Department of Veterans Affairs ("Department") and its officers and administrators illegally denied Dorothy Martin admission to the Veterans' Home of California ("Home") because of a disability, specifically, Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's-related dementia. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Defendants on some of Plaintiffs' claims, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants on the remainder. We hold that the rejection of Dorothy Martin's applications did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore affirm.¹

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs' claims arise from Dorothy's unsuccessful applications to reside at the Home.² These facilities provide a "home ... for aged and disabled persons who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America[,] who were discharged or released from active duty under honorable conditions," and who are California residents at the time of application. Cal. Mil. & Vet.Code § 1012(a).

Admission also depends on additional factors. Department regulations direct the Home to admit eligible applicants, "provided that care for their needs can be furnished within the available resources of the Veterans Home and subject to the levels of care for which direct admission is permitted." Cal.Code Regs. tit. 12, § 501(a). The regulations further provide that the "ability of the Veterans Home to provide adequately and appropriately for the applicant's medical and social needs and the applicant's ability and willingness to adapt to the Veterans Home environment shall be determining factors." Id. § 501(d) (emphasis added). The Home "shall refuse admission to applicants with medical conditions or disabilities requiring specialized care, handling, or treatment ... or other resources not available at the Veterans Home." Id. § 501.1 (emphasis added). In addition, admission is provided only on a "first come, first served basis." Id. § 502(a).

The Home is licensed by the State of California Department of Health Services to provide five levels of care: (1) independent living or domiciliary; (2) assisted living or residential care; (3) intermediate care; (4) skilled nursing care; and (5) acute hospital care.³ Id. § 503. Residents move through the levels of care according to their medical needs.

The evidence at trial showed that Dorothy required Skilled Nursing Care,⁴ the second-highest level of care available to residents, at the time of her applications. During the period she sought admission, an applicant could not be admitted directly to Skilled Nursing Care unless the occupancy rate at that care level was below 75%. Id. § 503(f). In addition, at that time, the Barstow and Chula Vista Campuses did not provide Skilled Nursing Care to new applicants,⁵ and the Yountville Campus was admitting residents to the domiciliary level of care only.

Dorothy was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and Alzheimer's-related dementia in 1998. Over an approximately 18-month period beginning in early 2000, Dorothy applied to, and was denied admission by, each Campus of the Home.

Mary Martin cared for her mother until her mother died in November 2001. During that time, Mary used her own money to pay for her mother's care. Mary also suffered "anxiety, frustration, sleeplessness, and despair."

Following Dorothy's death, Plaintiffs brought this action, alleging that Defendants illegally denied Dorothy admission to the Home because of her disability and stating claims under numerous theories of recovery. Over the next three years, those claims were winnowed down to claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and claims against the Department's officers in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause and California tort law. Plaintiffs sought to recover compensatory, special, and punitive damages.

The case was tried to a jury for a week. Before the jury returned its verdict, the parties filed cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The district court granted Defendants' motion in part, dismissing Plaintiffs' equal protection and state law tort claims against the Department's officers, Mary Martin's claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act against the Department, and the Estate's request for compensatory damages under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Department on Plaintiffs' remaining ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Plaintiffs again moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. Defendants moved for costs. The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion and granted costs to Defendants, but only those associated with the Rehabilitation Act, equal protection, and state law tort claims. Plaintiffs timely appeal.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo both the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law, Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.2003), and its denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.2006). In both instances, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Id.; Horphag, 337 F.3d at 1040.

"Judgment as a matter of law is proper when the evidence permits a reasonable jury to reach only one conclusion." Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., 466 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted if the evidence permits only one conclusion and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict. Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir.2002).

We also review de novo the existence of standing. Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1039 n. 3 (9th Cir.2008).

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a new trial. Pavao, 307 F.3d at 918. "A trial court may grant a new trial only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, and may not grant it simply because the court would have arrived at a different verdict." Id. We also review for abuse of discretion a district court's evidentiary rulings and will not reverse in the absence of prejudice. Josephs, 443 F.3d at 1064.

When evaluating a challenge to jury instructions, we consider "the charge as a whole to determine whether it is misleading or misstates the law ... and [we] will not reverse a judgment because of an erroneous instruction if the instructions fairly and adequately cover the issues." Id. at 1065 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the district court has "substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions," we review the instructions de novo if they are challenged as a misstatement of law. Mockler v. Multnomah County, 140 F.3d 808, 812 (9th Cir.1998). But reversal is not required "if the error was more probably than not harmless." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We also review for abuse of discretion an award of costs and will overturn the award "if it is based on an erroneous determination of law." Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.2008).

DISCUSSION

A. The Estate's ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims

The Estate first argues that the Department violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination because of a disability.⁶ To establish a violation of either statute, the Estate must show that: (1) Dorothy Martin was disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) she was "otherwise qualified" for the Home's services—i.e., that she could meet the essential eligibility requirements of such services, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) she was denied the services because of her disability; and (4) the Department received federal financial assistance (for the Rehabilitation Act claim) or was a public entity (for the ADA claim).⁷ Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1999).

The parties agree that Dorothy was "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and that the Department is a public entity that receives federal assistance. The parties disagree, however, on whether Dorothy was "otherwise qualified" for services and whether she was denied those services because of her disability.

Plaintiffs...