Wright v. Regents of the U. of Cal. CA2/3
B317965
Cal. Ct. App.May 18, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Wali Wright was an inpatient at Olive View UCLA Medical Center for about six months; while nurses repositioned him he suffered a sprained knee and torn medial meniscus.
- Wright sued Los Angeles County and The Regents of the University of California for negligence, alleging vicarious liability for the nurses’ conduct.
- Wright alleged the facility was presented to the public as “Olive View UCLA Medical Center” (omitting “LA County”) and that the County concealed its ownership, causing him not to file a government claim.
- Wright did not timely present a Government Claims Act claim; the County demurred for failure to comply with the claims-presentation requirements and Regents demurred for failure to plead actual or ostensible agency.
- The trial court sustained both demurrers without leave to amend; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding estoppel and agency/ostensible-agency were not adequately pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| County estoppel under the Government Claims Act | County concealed ownership by omitting “LA County” from the hospital name, so County should be estopped from asserting failure to present a claim | County: public records show it operates the hospital; omission of wording is not an affirmative concealment; plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence | Demurrer sustained. Omission/silence insufficient to plead estoppel; judicially noticed public records defeat concealment theory; no leave to amend |
| Actual agency (Regents — nurses) | Nurses were joint employees/actual employees of Regents | Regents: allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing control/employment | Demurrer sustained. Conclusory agency allegations insufficient; no leave to amend |
| Ostensible agency (Regents — nurses) | Regents’ affiliation/residency programs and facility naming caused Wright to reasonably believe nurses were Regents’ employees | Regents: mere affiliation and third-party statements do not amount to principal-made representations; plaintiff did not and could not show reliance | Demurrer sustained. TAC fails to allege principal’s representations, justifiable reliance, and resulting injury; no leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Estill v. County of Shasta, 25 Cal.App.5th 702 (2018) (equitable estoppel may bar a public entity from asserting Claims Act noncompliance when its conduct prevented compliance)
- Sofranek v. County of Merced, 146 Cal.App.4th 1238 (2007) (plaintiff must specifically plead facts establishing estoppel)
- City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (2007) (failure to present a timely government claim bars suit against a public entity)
- Elmore v. Oak Valley Hospital Dist., 204 Cal.App.3d 716 (1988) (example where hospital’s naming/roster confusion supported estoppel because plaintiff reasonably relied)
- Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino, 99 Cal.App.4th 1448 (2002) (ostensible agency in hospital context requires conduct by the hospital that would cause a reasonable person to believe the provider was the hospital’s agent and plaintiff’s reliance)
- Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group LLC, 37 Cal.App.5th 1076 (2019) (ostensible agency liability rests on principal-made representations, justifiable reliance, and resulting injury)
- Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 7 Cal.4th 926 (1994) (equitable estoppel includes a requirement that the plaintiff exercise reasonable diligence)