Humboldt County Adult Protective Services v. Superior Court of Humboldt County
4 Cal. App. 5th 548
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mr. Richard (Dick) Magney executed a valid 2011 advance health care directive appointing his wife Judith as his health‑care agent and expressing a preference for palliative care when further treatment would be nonbeneficial.
- In March 2015 Mr. Magney was hospitalized with mitral valve endocarditis, sepsis, malnutrition and other serious conditions; Dr. Stephanie Phan, the treating physician, reviewed records, examined Mr. Magney and concluded palliative (comfort) care was appropriate and consistent with his expressed wishes and capacity.
- Humboldt County Adult Protective Services (APS) investigator Heather Ringwald, after reviewing records and consulting others (including a VA physician who had not treated Mr. Magney recently and a VA psychologist who saw him once), filed an ex parte petition under the Health Care Decisions Law to (1) remove Mrs. Magney as agent and (2) obtain a temporary order compelling antibiotics/treatment.
- Humboldt’s petition omitted any mention of Dr. Phan or her assessment and relied on unauthenticated, hearsay‑laden materials and a form competency statement by a psychologist; much of that material was never admitted into evidence. The trial court granted a temporary treatment order; Humboldt later withdrew the petition after Mrs. Magney obtained counsel and challenged the pleadings.
- Mrs. Magney sought attorney fees under Probate Code § 4771 (authorizes fees to an agent if the proceeding was commenced “without any reasonable cause”); the trial court denied fees. The appellate court reversed, holding Humboldt lacked reasonable cause and abused the court process by concealing material facts and relying on inadmissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Humboldt) | Defendant's Argument (Magney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a proceeding under the Health Care Decisions Law was commenced without "reasonable cause" for § 4771 fee award | Humboldt argued it reasonably believed intervention was necessary due to concerns about neglect, incapacity, and treatability of conditions | Magney argued Humboldt had no objective reasonable cause: its filings lacked competent admissible evidence, omitted treating physician's assessment, and mischaracterized evidence | Held: Court applied an objective standard for "reasonable cause," found Humboldt lacked it, and reversed to award fees |
| Whether evidence Humboldt relied on was sufficient to support ex parte temporary treatment order | Humboldt relied on Ringwald declaration, a VA physician letter, and a psychologist’s form declaration | Magney argued the materials were hearsay, unauthenticated, not admitted, and Dr. Phan’s contemporaneous clinical opinions (favorable to palliative care) were concealed | Held: Humboldt’s evidentiary showing was inadequate; Rules of evidence apply; omission of Dr. Phan’s assessment was material and fatal |
| Whether the primary physician for competency determinations was properly identified | Humboldt suggested the VA physician’s letter supported competency questions | Magney pointed to § 4631/4658: the treating/primary physician (Dr. Phan) determines competency for Health Care Decisions Law purposes | Held: Dr. Phan was the primary physician; Humboldt’s reliance on a non‑treating VA physician and a nonphysician psychologist was legally inapt |
| Whether a governmental APS may proceed under the Health Care Decisions Law | Humboldt asserted standing to file the petition as an interested governmental actor investigating possible neglect | Magney contested Humboldt’s authority and emphasized statutory list of authorized petitioners (public guardian, court investigator, etc.) | Held: Court avoided deciding standing definitively but noted Humboldt’s authority was questionable; not necessary to the fee disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 19 Cal.4th 851 (discusses objective "reasonable cause" standard and analogy to probable cause)
- Wendland, 26 Cal.4th 519 (explains advance health care directives remain operative after loss of capacity and legislative purpose of Health Care Decisions Law)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (objective probable cause standard protects against unreasonable litigation)
- Silva v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 65 Cal.App.4th 256 (limits on hearsay and use of investigatory interview forms; distinguishes standards for employer good faith investigation)
- Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93 (employer good faith investigation analysis referenced in Silva)
- Hall v. Regents of Univ. of California, 43 Cal.App.4th 1580 ("reasonable cause" subject to de novo review)
- Uzyel v. Kadisha, 188 Cal.App.4th 866 (application of objective "reasonable cause" standard in fee‑shifting context)