Parthemore v. Col, 221 Cal. App. 4th 1372

Plaintiff Ira Don Parthemore, an incarcerated inmate, sues optometrist Peter R. Col under contract with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for negligence and intentional tort.
The trial court sustained a demurrer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.
Parthemore sought cataract surgery and challenged a misdiagnosis of legal blindness on DCR form 1845, alleging deliberate falsification.
An initial health care appeal granted a surgery schedule at level II, but Parthemore argued subsequent filings raised new issues not exhausted in the appeal.
The first amended complaint added claims that Col refused to issue a new glasses prescription and that Col falsified records to cause a transfer to a medical facility.
The appellate court held that exhaustion requirements apply to independent contractors; the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does exhaustion of administrative remedies apply to independent contractors?	Parthemore argues independent contractors are exempt from exhaustion rules.	Col maintains exhaustion applies to all actions concerning medical treatment, including independent contractors.	Exhaustion applies; independent contractors are included.

Wright v. State of California, 122 Cal.App.4th 659 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (exhaustion required for prisoner medical-claim remedies)
Campbell v. Regents of Univ. of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) (exhaustion doctrine governs access to courts)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (federal exhaustion framework guidance)
Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco, 145 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (administrative remedies and exhaustion discussed)
Doe II v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (judicial notice considerations on demurrer)