Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 22STCP03095 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP03095, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Respondent, the Department of Health Services of the County of Los Angeles, moves to correct and strike portions of the administrative record. Petitioner, Athena Alexander, M.D., opposes the motion.

Augmentation of the administrative record is strictly controlled by statutory guidelines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e). (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (Bressman) (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101.) Governing augmentation, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e) provides:

“Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case.”

The burden to make either of the required showings to augment the record lies with the proponent of the additional evidence. (Armondo v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1180-1181.)

Relevant evidence is “evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.)

In this proceeding, Petitioner challenges Respondent’s May 26, 2022 decision denying Petitioner’s application for renewal of credentialing and privileges. (First Amended Petition [FAP] ¶ 8; Prayer ¶ 1.) On May 26, 2022, Respondent’s director denied Petitioner’s appeal of a hearing committee decision. (FAP ¶ 8.)

The general rule governing administrative mandamus provides the hearing is conducted “solely” on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.[1] (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881. [“The general rule is that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.”] See also Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1144 [“fundamental rule of administrative law is that a court’s review is confined to an examination of the record before the administrative agency at the time it takes the action being challenged”].)

Respondent seeks to correct the administrative record by striking certain pages from the administrative record—those pages marked AR 636-788. Respondent argues the identified pages are not properly part of the administrative record. Respondent reports the identified pages relate to matters occurring after May 26, 2022, the date of the final administrative decision challenged by Petitioner. Respondent describes the identified pages as related to the County of Los Angeles’ October 19, 2022 notice of intent to discharge Petitioner, a November 8, 2022 Skelly hearing, and Petitioner’s December 9, 2022 appeal to the County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission. (Curtis Decl., ¶ 3.)

It is undisputed the identified pages—which post-date the challenged administrative decision—could not have been provided during the hearing leading to Respondent’s May 26, 2022 decision. The records did not yet exist. Thus, it appears the records are not relevant to this proceeding in administrative mandamus.

“. . . clearly reflect Petitioner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies for each and every administrative decision against Petitioner by Respondent. Inclusion of such pages is necessary in order to preclude any potential defense offered by Respondent alleging that Petitioner had not exhausted all means of administrative review. As such, [the identified pages] should remain within the Administrative Record, and Respondent’s motion warrants denial.” (Opp. 3:21-26.)

Respondent acknowledges in reply Petitioner exhausted her administrative remedies. Thus, there is no issue about exhaustion. (Answer ¶ 46.)

No party discusses the requirements and/or procedure for exhausting Petitioner’s administrative remedies as to the May 26, 2022 decision. Nonetheless, it appears Respondent’s application decision is distinct from its termination decision. The identified post-decision pages do not appear relevant to any challenge to the May 26, 2022 decision.[2]

Based on the scope of the issues raised in the pleadings, the identified pages are not relevant to Petitioner’s challenge to Respondent’s May 26, 2022 decision.

[1] Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e) does, however, provide a limited exception to the administrative record rule where “there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e) [emphasis added].)

[2] If the identified pages were related to Petitioner’s exhaustion requirements as to the application decision, the identified pages would properly be included as part of the administrative record even if Respondent does not raise an exhaustion issue.