Roy v. Superior Court
198 Cal. App. 4th 1337
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Board disciplined Roy with a public reprimand for sexual relations with a patient and for gross negligence.
- Roy sought mandamus; trial court upheld the Board’s decision, including a finding that Roy violated §726.1.
- Roy petitioned the appellate court for mandamus to overturn the trial court’s decision.
- Two central contested facts: whether V.H. fondled Roy for a substantial period with Roy’s consent, and whether that conduct qualified as sexual relations under §726.
- Evidence showed preexisting romantic interest, a May 18 encounter at a restaurant and then in a car, with V.H. touching Roy’s groin area; Roy did not stop the contact.
- Trial, Board, and court all concluded the touching was substantial and that it qualified as sexual relations under §726, leading to discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence supports groping finding? | Roy argues the groping was speculative and not supported by the record. | Board found credible testimony and inferences support that Roy permitted groping for minutes. | Yes, substantial evidence supports finding Roy permitted groping. |
| Groping constitutes 'sexual relations' under §726? | Unilateral touching by patient cannot constitute sexual relations. | Statute's broad conception includes touching of intimate parts for sexual purpose, even if initiated by patient. | Yes, it constitutes sexual relations under §726. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffiths v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 757 (Cal. App. 2002) (framework for independent review of trial court factual findings)
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971) (trial court independently weighs evidence on mandate review)
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners, 17 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1998) (principles of appellate review on questions of law and fact)
- Marek v. Board of Podiatric Medicine, 16 Cal.App.4th 1089 (Cal. App. 1993) (distance between fact-finding and legal conclusions in review)
- Jenkins v. County of Riverside, 138 Cal.App.4th 593 (Cal. App. 2006) (independent review of statutory interpretation on mandamus)
- Romano v. Mercury Ins. Co., 128 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. App. 2005) (differing meanings of similar terms across statutory schemes)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Hilmar Unified School Dist., 95 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. App. 2002) (interpretation of statutory terms and legislative intent)
- Estate of Young, 160 Cal.App.4th 62 (Cal. App. 2008) (liberal construction to support judgment; credibility determinations)