Baber v. Napa State Hospital
Before: Haning
Opinion
HANING, J.
Plaintiff Bruce Baber appeals from a judgment denying him relief from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4.
1
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the relief sought.
We conclude that uncontradicted evidence of plaintiff’s mental illness established his incapacity to comply with the claim requirements, there
[517]
by rendering his delay reasonable, and the trial court’s denial an abuse of discretion.
Injured parties pursuing tort actions against the State of California must present a claim to the State Board of Control (Board) within 100 days of the accrual of their cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) The timely presentation of such a claim and action thereon or rejection thereof by the Board is a prerequisite to commencement of a suit for damages. (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) Parties not meeting the 100-day period of section 911.2 may file an application to present a late claim (Gov. Code, §§ 911.4, 911.6) and if such application is denied may petition the court for relief from the provisions of section 945.4. (Gov. Code, § 946.6.) The trial court’s decision on a claim for relief under section 946.6 will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
(Ebersol
v.
Cowan
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435 [197 Cal.Rptr. 601, 673 P.2d 271];
Viles
v.
State of California
(1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 28 [56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 423 P.2d 818].)
Plaintiff lost the use of his right eye on July 9, 1977, while involuntarily hospitalized at Napa State Hospital as a gravely disabled conservatee under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) He remained so hospitalized until November 28, 1977. At that time he was released to a psychiatric halfway house and, at all times relevant to this action, remained under a conservatorship pursuant to a treatment plan. Following his release from the hospital, plaintiff continued to suffer severe mental problems which were exacerbated when he failed to take his prescribed antipsychotic medication. Even when he was on his medication regimen it was difficult to converse with him. Another manifestation of his illness was his failure to maintain regular contact with his conservator, and periodic disappearances from his halfway house.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)