Jackson v. Truong CA4/2
E073434
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- In August 2016 Jackson slipped in a CIW shower, broke her ankle, and had surgery at Riverside County Regional Medical Center (RCRMC).
- She returned to CIW for follow-up in September 2016 and was treated by Dr. Frank Truong; she developed a postoperative wound infection and required additional surgery on September 26, 2016.
- Jackson filed inmate appeals (CDCR Form 602) beginning September 9, 2016, complaining about the shower, wheelchair, transportation, and requesting continued medical care and monetary compensation; those appeals did not name Dr. Truong or expressly assert inadequate care by him.
- The Form 602 designated HC16028624 was partially granted (continued medical treatment) and denied as to monetary relief; Jackson did not pursue second- or third-level appeals on the issue of Dr. Truong’s care.
- Jackson sued Dr. Truong for medical malpractice in state court; Truong moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court granted the motion; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson exhausted administrative remedies for her malpractice claim against Dr. Truong | Jackson: her Form 602s (which mentioned a surgical-site infection and were reviewed by staff including Truong) put CDCR on notice of inadequate medical care; naming Truong was not required and specificity was not strict | Truong: regulations require naming involved staff and exhaustion through third-level review; Jackson never named Truong nor pursued third-level review for claims about his care | Held: Jackson failed to exhaust. She did not name Truong, did not present facts tying her injury to his care, and did not pursue third-level review. |
| Whether the futility exception to exhaustion applies | Jackson: it would be futile to refile a grievance naming Truong because the prison already denied relief and the outcome would be the same | Truong: futility is a narrow exception that requires proof the agency has declared its likely ruling; Jackson presented no such proof | Held: Futility rejected. Jackson did not show the appeals process would have been predetermined or that CIW declared its likely ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Towns v. Davidson, 147 Cal.App.4th 461 (2007) (defendant meets initial summary judgment burden by negating plaintiff's ability to prove elements)
- Wright v. State, 122 Cal.App.4th 659 (2004) (exhaustion of inmate administrative remedies is jurisdictional; third-level completion required)
- Parthemore v. Col, 221 Cal.App.4th 1372 (2013) (prison grievance regulations require naming staff and full exhaustion; purpose of grievance process explained)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (2010) (futility is a narrow exception requiring evidence agency declared its ruling)
- Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 610 (2009) (standard that summary judgment is appropriate only when no triable issue of material fact exists)