Vestal v. State Personnel Board

PEEK, J. The respondent State Personnel Board appeals from an order of the trial court directing it to set aside its decision dismissing petitioner Hazel Vestal from her position as a psychiatric technician at the Modesto State Hospital.

[921]On November 28, 1955, petitioner received written notice of dismissal, which action was based on her complicity in the death of one Grace Belill, a patient at the abovementioned hospital. She filed a notice of appeal with the board and a hearing was thereupon held. Pursuant to a stipulation of counsel the matter was submitted to the board on the testimony given before it and upon the record in the case of People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409 [317 P.2d 974], a manslaughter prosecution in which the jury had found petitioner not guilty but found McCaughan guilty.

After reviewing the record of the aforementioned criminal proceeding, the board found that McCaughan (plaintiff’s co-defendant in that proceeding) was attempting to spoon-feed the patient Belill, that Belill was resisting McCaughan’s efforts ; that McCaughan placed food in Belill’s mouth, then held the patient's head back and placed a towel over the lower part of her face so that both her nose and mouth were covered; that petitioner herein assisted in this process by holding the wrists of the patient; that she was aware of the method of spoon-feeding adopted by McCaughan • and that the death of Belill was proximately caused by the feeding, i.e., due to asphyxiation resulting from the aspiration of vomitus into the bronchi and trachea. Based on these facts the board also found that petitioner’s actions violated subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (n) and (s) of section 19572 of the Government Code, and that therefore she was properly dismissed from state service.

Petitioner then sought a writ of mandate from the Superior Court of Sacramento County to compel the board to reinstate her to her former position. After a hearing thereon the court issued the same on the theory that the findings of the board were not supported by the record. From its memorandum opinion it appears that the court below impliedly rejected the testimony of three witnesses, Ethel Carter, Rose Davis and Rose Adele Blackwood, on the ground that they were not mentally competent. These witnesses were all inmates of the institution and were the only persons called by the prosecution to testify to the facts surrounding the feeding.

On this appeal the board contends that these witnesses were competent; that there was ample evidence to support its conclusions ; and, finally, that the superior court erred in that it failed to find that petitioner’s claim for back salary was barred by section 19630 of the Government Code.