Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV00044, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00044, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00044 Hearing Date: February 8, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

C.H. v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. 23SMCV00044

Hearing Date February 8, 2024

Defendant Regents’ Demurrer to Plaintiff C.H.’s Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff inpatient at UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute sues defendants Regents and Dr. Casaus for damages due to a sexual assault by another patient. The court sustained demurrers to the first and second amended complaints, with leave to amend. Regents now demur to the TAC’s causes of action for failure to provide adequate equipment, personnel or facilities and cause of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

First Cause of Action

“Public entities have broad immunity from liability for injuries suffered by an inpatient of a mental institution.” State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court of Napa County (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1069. Cal. Gov. Code §854.8 states a public entity is not liable for injury to or proximately caused by a patient of a mental institution; exceptions include liability for failure to provide adequate equipment, personnel or facilities. Id. at (c), Cal. Gov. Code §855. This exception requires a plaintiff to identify a statute or regulation that sets a specific minimum standard – rather than a general legal duty -- for staffing or facilities. State Dept., supra, 84 Cal. App.5th at 1076.

A public entity may be liable for a dangerous condition of public property, even where the immediate cause of a plaintiff’s injury is a third party’s negligent or illegal act, if some physical characteristic of the property exposes its users to increased danger from third party negligence or criminality. Mison v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 124, 131.

The previous demurrers were sustained because C.H. had not alleged facts showing how the Regents failed to meet specific regulatory or statutory standards. Though the TAC provides more specifics, the Regents argue it still fails to allege enough facts for liability under §855.

The Regents argue some of the regulations alleged are “general regulations” which, since they do not set forth a specific standard, cannot be the basis for liability under §855. See State Dept., supra, Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 289, 308 “[W]e conclude that a regulation requiring sufficient nursing staff . . . to meet the needs of the patients . . . is not the type of regulation ‘prescribing minimum standards for equipment, personnel or facilities,’ the breach of which can give rise to liability under government code section 855.”

22 Cal. Code of Regs. 71205, cited in the TAC, requires “sufficient psychiatrists on the staff to meet the needs of the patients.” No specific number of psychiatrists is required, only that the number be “sufficient.” Under Lockhart this is a “general regulation” that cannot support §855 liability. Section 71205 also requires “one or more” clinical psychologists and “one or more” social workers to be employed at a mental health facility. 22 Cal. Code of Regs. §71205 (d)(e). Under Lockhart, failure to meet that minimum number of staff psychologists and social workers, resulting in injury, can give rise to §855 liability.

The TAC cites the minimum bed requirement (§71609), room size requirement (§71611), and minimum staffing requirements for each 24-hour period (§7706). These specific standards established by regulation can support a public entity claim under §855.

C.H. alleged breaches of various standards and injuries resulting from those breaches. Regents argue the claim of a causal link between alleged breaches and the injuries is erroneous. Regents assert C.H. was in the hallway where the assault began “not because there was some problem with the bed in her room, or because the interdisciplinary plan needed to be updated, but because her own disruptive behavior led to her being removed from a group therapy session.” Demurrer at pg. 3. This factual contention is not a proper basis for demurrer. The TAC alleges because C.H.’s room did not meet minimum standards, she was forced to be on a mattress in the hallway, and because the Regents did not meet the minimum staffing requirements, she was vulnerable to assault by another patient. For purposes of pleading, these allegations must be treated as true, and the court cannot engage in fact-finding or make factual determinations.

C.H. alleged facts that, if proven, could establish an exception to statutory public entity immunity under Cal. Gov. Code §855. OVERRULED.

Fifth Cause of Action

The Regents argue C.H.’s ADA claim is subject to demurrer because in a private action for violation of Title III only injunctive relief, not damages, are available. 42 U.S.C. §12188(a), (b) (2) (B). Since the TAC seeks damages and does not request injunctive relief, the ADA claim is faulty.

The Regents argue the ADA falls outside purview of Cal. Gov. Code §855. If §855 does not apply to the ADA claim, the Regents are shielded by governmental immunity. C.H. does not address this argument in her opposition, which the court will treat as an admission that the argument is valid. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.