Munoz v. State of California
Citation | 33 Cal.App.4th 1767,39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 |
Decision Date | 21 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. F021620,F021620 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | Rhonda MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of California, Defendant and Respondent. |
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her permission to file a late tort claim against a governmental entity (Gov.Code, § 946.6). 1
On December 8, 1993, plaintiff's counsel prepared a claim for damages to be presented to the State Board of Control (Gov.Code, § 911.2). The claim alleged medical personnel of the California Correctional Institution failed to treat plaintiff's father for cancer in his right lung, that failure led to the death of plaintiff's father on December 14, 1992, and plaintiff incurred damages in the sum of $1 million for the wrongful death of her father.
On the same date, plaintiff's counsel executed an application for permission to present a late claim (Gov.Code, § 911.2). Counsel alleged the claim was not filed on a timely basis because the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi failed to release medical information relating to plaintiff's father, despite counsel's diligent pursuit of the necessary medical records.
On December 22, 1993, plaintiff's claim and application were presented to the State Board of Control. On January 26, 1994, the board issued a determination letter stating: "[T]he Board has no jurisdiction to accept the claim for consideration [because] [y]our application for leave to present a late claim was filed more than one year from the date of the incident that is the basis of the claim."
On March 1, 1994, plaintiff filed a petition in Kern County Superior Court for order permitting the filing of a late claim against a governmental entity. (Gov.Code, § 946.6.)
In late March 1994, respondent State of California filed written objections and opposition to the petition. Respondent also requested the superior court to take judicial notice of plaintiff's Board of Control claim file (Evid.Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453). 2
On March 31, 1994, the court conducted a contested hearing on the petition, heard the arguments of counsel, and took the matter under submission. Thereafter, on April 7, 1994, the court filed a statement of decision which denied plaintiff relief. The statement of decision provided in relevant part:
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's decedent, Curtis Kates, was a prisoner at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, in 1992. Decedent received medical treatment and care from the physicians, medical staff, and other medical personnel at the correctional institution. However, the medical team allegedly failed to diagnose and/or treat decedent for cancer in his right lung. The disease spread and Kates died at Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield on December 12, 1992.
On January 21, 1993, plaintiff retained the law offices of Neil C. Newson & Associates to pursue damages for wrongful death. The six-month period within which to file a claim under the California Tort Claims Act would expire on June 12, 1993.
Plaintiff's counsel requested decedent's medical records from the Department of Corrections by way of form letters dated March 1, 1993, March 8, 1993, July 7, 1993, July 12, 1993, August 10, 1993, and November 17, 1993. Counsel obtained the medical records from the State of California on December 6, 1993. Although no Tort Claims Act claim had, as yet, been filed, counsel maintained he could not file a claim for medical malpractice in good faith without first obtaining and reviewing the necessary medical records to substantiate the claim.
On December 8, 1993, two days after receiving decedent's medical records from the respondent, counsel prepared and transmitted an application for permission to present late claim to the State Board of Control. On January 26, 1994, the Board of Control informed counsel it did not have jurisdiction to consider the application because it was filed more than one year after decedent's death. On March 1, 1994, plaintiff's counsel filed a petition in Kern County Superior Court to obtain permission to file a late claim against the governmental entity. On April 7, 1994, after argument, the lower court denied the petition by minute order.
Plaintiff contends the lower court abused its discretion when it denied her petition seeking relief from the claim presentation requirements of Government Code sections 911.4, 915, subdivision (c), and 946.6, subdivisions (b)(1), (2), and (c)(1). Plaintiff argues (1) her attorney substantially complied with the relevant statutes; (2) her attorney's failure to file a claim with the State of California within 100 days after accrual of the cause of action was excusable; (3) public policy favors a trial on the merits; (4) the State of California has not been prejudiced by the late filing of plaintiff's claim; and (5) the State of California should be estopped from asserting noncompliance with claim statutes.
In 1963, the Legislature enacted several interrelated statutory provisions effective September 20, 1963, which have become known as the Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, §§ 810-996.6). (Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 1992) § 2.1, pp. 69-70.) The intent of the Tort Claims Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs against governmental entities. Rather, the intent of the act is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances. (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838, 129 Cal.Rptr. 453, 548 P.2d 1125.)
The Tort Claims Act requires any civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity (Gov.Code, §§ 910, 912.4, 912.8, 945.4). The act creates a bond between the administrative claim and the judicial complaint. Each theory of recovery against the public entity must have been reflected in a timely claim. In addition, the factual circumstances set forth in the claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint. (Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 787, 793-794, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 756.)
Government Code section 911.2 requires the claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. The claim presentation requirement serves several purposes:...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Demonte v. Griffith
...civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity." Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 (1995). The purpose of this requirement is "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequat......
-
Alarcon v. Davey
...that any civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity." Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776 (1995). The purpose of this requirement is "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investi......
-
Jones v. Speidell
...civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity." Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 (1995). The purpose of this requirement is "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequat......
-
Applegate v. Said
...civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity." Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 (1995). The purpose of this requirement is "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequat......
-
Table of cases
...11:122.1 Municipal Court v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 19, §§3:56.3, 4:12.5, 4:15 Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, §9:105.4 Munro v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 41, §§11:142.3.3, 11:142.4.3 Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 2......
-
Governmental tort liability
...attempts to get leave to file a late claim after the running of six months, the leading case of Munoz v. State of California , 33 Cal.App. 4th 1767 (1995) has held that the only justification for “excusable neglect” was that the claimant had attempted to find an attorney within the six-mont......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...it does not necessarily mean that every fact found in the file is judicially noticed as true ( Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767; People v. Long (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 586); rather, individual statements in the file are subject to cognizable objections ( In re Rocco M. (1......