Appeals Court Dismisses Wrongful Death Lawsuit for Failure to Timely File Claim
March 1, 2023 5 minutes read
News: A California appeals panel dismissed two claims filed by the patient’s children alleging the negligence of a hospital and five of its nurses led to their mother’s death after surgery. The justices concluded the children had not filed a timely claim against the hospital in compliance with state law requirements.
The three-justice panel affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs could not circumvent the state’s Government Claims Act, which requires claims to be presented in a notice to sue within six months of the alleged injury.
The panel noted evidence in the record that on Dec. 26, 2018, the day their mother died, the children suspected something was wrong with the manner of their mother’s death, but they did not file the notice intent to sue until nearly a year later, thus barring the suit.
Background: According to the suit, the patient arrived at the defendant hospital for routine surgery but died in the recovery room. Although physicians told the plaintiffs their mother’s death was not due to negligence, the plaintiffs’ responses to discovery indicate they suspected that day something was wrong.
After the plaintiffs mailed a notice of intent to sue, the hospital responded it was filed too late and advised them to apply for leave to file late notice. The plaintiffs did so but received no response. They filed the complaint a month later. The trial court subsequently granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, finding the claim was untimely. The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
While the plaintiffs argued the death did not accrue until much later because they had been told there was no wrongdoing, the appellate court rejected the argument, citing their responses to written discovery in which the children said they suspected wrongdoing the day of her death. The appeals court also rejected the argument the cause of action did not accrue at that time because they did not know the specific wrongdoing of individual nurses. The justices noted ignorance of any defendant’s identity does not delay a cause of action. While the plaintiffs argued they had substantially complied with the Government Claims Act, the justices found the substantial compliance rules applied to the content requirements of a claim, not the timeliness requirement.
The plaintiffs also noted the parent health system waived its right to object to the timeliness of the notice because the hospital was the only one to respond and advise the plaintiffs to apply for leave to file late. However, the appeals court found the hospital identified itself as owned by the parent health system, and the plaintiffs cited no legal authority requiring separate responses. The single response about the late claim was sufficient.
In addition, the application to file a late claim was out of compliance with the act. Such an application must be filed within a year of the cause of action’s accrual but was filed more than a month later. The plaintiffs never filed a petition for relief from the late filing rule with the court.
The plaintiffs also argued there were triable issues of fact about whether they knew the health system was a public entity that employed the nurses within the six-month period. However, the general rule is if a suit is barred against a public entity, it is likewise barred against its employees, the appeals court noted. To overcome this, the plaintiffs had to show they did not know or have reason to know the nurses were employees at the time. The complaint does not reference this requirement of the act, and that alone bars the claims. The appellate court further concluded due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys would have revealed this information well before the six-month window had expired, given the nurses’ names were on medical records obtained by counsel, and those records did not specify the nurses were not employees.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that allowing the suit to go forward would serve public policy, finding first the argument is waived because it was not raised during the summary judgment proceedings. Moreover, the court reasoned the purpose of the Government Claims Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs in suits against the government, but rather to limit potential governmental liability. The six-month window is specifically designed to let public entities investigate claims while evidence is still available, settle claims without unnecessary litigation, and plan budgets. Allowing these claims to go forward would undercut those purposes, while enforcing the time requirement would be consistent with the act’s intent.
What this means to you: This case is a fine example of the Government Claims Act and its application to public entities, including public health systems. The Government Claims Act’s purpose is “to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances.’” (Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. [1993].) To that end, the claims act imposes strict procedural requirements on litigants seeking money or damages from a public entity, including requiring litigants to submit a claim to the public entity before filing a lawsuit. Failure to do so can void the claim. But there are traps for the unwary public entities, too. If implemented correctly, claims denials can shorten the statute of limitations and create defenses in litigation. But public entities often miss these opportunities — and waive reliance on the act — by not responding correctly.
One common pitfall is an entity fails to recognize an informal written complaint is a claim. What qualifies as a claim? In the easy case, there is no room for doubt. A plaintiff’s lawyer fills out a public entity’s form, “Claims for Damages to Person or Property,” correctly details all the statutorily required information, and sends it to the right place. But many claims are not so obvious. In California, it comes down to the requirements set forth in Government Code section 910. Does the letter include the claimant’s name and address; the address for notices; all the required factual detail; and a claim for damages? Courts will recognize a claim as valid if it “substantially complies” with all the statutory requirements. (Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. [2017].) The doctrine “is based on the premise that substantial compliance fulfills the purpose of the claims statutes; namely, to give the public entity timely notice of the nature of the claim so that it may investigate and settle those having merit without litigation.”
A claim that is inadequate under Section 910 still can trigger a duty to act by the public entity to “notify the potential claimant of the claim’s insufficiency stating, with particularity, the defects or omissions.” (Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare Dist. [2022].) The failure to do so “waives any defenses as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission.” Here, the medical facility properly responded to the untimely notice from the plaintiffs and provided steps for them to cure the defect. Moreover, it is important to note, even though the notice was only sent to the medical center, the response letter properly noted that it communicated on behalf of both it and the parent company.
To avoid the pitfalls of inadequate response to incomplete, improper, and untimely claims, it is important to create standard practices and forms for responding to all communications from parties with a grievance, to reject late claims, provide required notice of how to cure, and/or explain how the “notice” is otherwise deficient. Reporting complaints and grievances, including the importance of timely reporting, should be prominently displayed in public areas. Public entity staff must adhere to required response times to complaints and grievances to ensure fairness and transparency in addition to access to legal remedies for all involved.
REFERENCE
- Decided Jan. 17, 2023, in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Case Number D073266.
This case is a fine example of the Government Claims Act and its application to public entities, including public health systems.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content