Lanham v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 4/29/14 Lanham v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

GORDON LANHAM, B252156

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC508840) v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle R. Rosenblatt, Judge. Affirmed.

Gordon Lanham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Narbeh Bagdasarian, Deputy County Counsel; Pollak, Vida & Fisher and Daniel P. Barer for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Plaintiff Gordon Lanham appeals pro se a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer and dismissal of his complaint against the County of Los Angeles, LAC+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC), and several LAC+USC employees without leave to amend. We affirm. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County of Los Angeles, LAC+USC, and several LAC+USC employees solely in their official capacities (together the County), alleging violations of provisions in the Health and Safety Code governing patient access to health records (the Patient Access Law). (See Health & Saf. Code, § 123100 et seq.1) Plaintiff alleged he had mailed a series of requests for his medical records to LAC+USC on May 8, May 12, and May 30, 2012, but did not receive a response. He attempted calling the medical records department, but his calls went unanswered. After two or three weeks of calls with no resolution, he sent another request on June 25, 2012. He waited another two weeks without receiving a response. On July 25, 2012, he called every department seeking his medical records. He got in touch with LAC+USC’s Chief Executive Officer, but after he explained his complaint, the telephone went dead and repeated calls to the telephone number indicated the number was no longer in service. He also got in touch with LAC+USC’s Chief Operating Officer, but the result was the same—the line promptly went dead when he explained his complaint. After more telephone calls, transfers, and waiting on hold for 30 minutes, plaintiff finally spoke with someone named Pamela in the records department, and she told him he could request his records through her. On August 3, 2012, plaintiff received a small portion of his records, but he did not receive the financial portion, despite having requested all his records. On August 5, 2012, plaintiff sent another request for a copy of his complete records, but they were