Government Liability Update

Officer Has Probable Cause to Arrest Teacher Based on Interview of 10-Year Old Student

In John v. Youngquist, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order denying an officer summary judgment against a 42 USC section 1983 suit brought by a fifth-grade teacher whom the officer arrested.  A 10-year-old student of the teacher told the officer the teacher had molested her.  The officer arrested the teacher in her school, and led her away in handcuffs.  She was released 36 hours later when the DA declined to prosecute her.

The district court declined summary judgment on the grounds of probable cause and qualified immunity.  Because of the qualified immunity ground, the officer was entitled to appeal the denial.

The Ninth Circuit found the officer had probable cause to arrest the teacher.  The judges opined that the officer likely acted with unnecessary haste in arresting the teacher, particularly in such a dramatic fashion.  But it found that the 10-year-old's statements during the interview, combined with the officer's training and expertise in determining the veracity of child accusers, could have led a reasonable officer to  believe the teacher had committed an offense against the student.

New 9th Circuit Decision Limits Secondary Causes of Action for Special Education Students' Parents

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. sections 1400-1482, is one of the most litigated set of federal statutes on the books.  It deals with the obligation of public schools to provide a free and appropriate public education to students with special needs.  Sometimes the parents of those students will sue for their own mental distress sustained in the process of obtaining IDEA benefits for their children.  Blanchard v. Morton School District, published by the 9th Circuit on September 20, 2007, limits their ability to do so.  In a terse six-page opinion, the court ruled that:

-- 42 U.S.C. section 1983 does not create a cause of action for damages for suffering or wage loss by such parents; and

-- unless the parent himself or herslef is disabled, neither section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 nor Title II of the ADA create a cause of action for the parent's suffering or wage loss.

*****Update******

On December 3, 2007, the 9th Circuit amended its decision in Blanchard.  The amended decision states that the Court does not reach a parent's right to seek emotional distress damages under section 504 or Title II of the ADA, because the plaintiff in Blanchard failed to preserve the issue for appeal.  The Court has therefore left that issue open. 

Limiting Liability for Mental Patients' Injuries

Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, a case in which we represented the County as appellate counsel, addresses the sensitive area of public health care provider immunity for injuries to mental inpatients.

In Lockhart, the plaintiff's father was on suicide watch in a mental hospital during a 5150 hold and a subsequent 14-day hold.  He locked himself in his bathroom and hanged himself.  Efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.

Government Code section 854.8 broadly immunizes public entities from liability for injuries to inpatients of mental institutions.  One exception to the immunity is Government Code section 855.  Section 855 renders the entity liable for injuries in medical facilities subject to regulation by specified state agencies dealing with social services or mental health, if the injury proximately results from failure to provide adequate or sufficient equipment, personnel or facilities required either by statute, or by any regulation of the specified state agencies "prescribing minimum standards for equipment, personnel or facilities" -- unless the entity establishes it exercised reasonable diligence to comply with the regulations.

Plaintiff alleged that the facility violated County regulations, federal Medicare regulations, and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization standards.  None of those bodies are listed in section 855.  The appellate court therefore ruled that violation of those bodies' standards does not trigger section 855's exception to the section 854.8 immunity.

The court further ruled that only statutes and regulations that prescribe minimum standards can create liability.  Regulation that simply require "sufficient" equipment, personnel or facilities are too broad to fit within the "narrow exception of Government Code section 855."  On this point, the Second District Court of Appeal, which decided Lockhart, disagreed with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Baber v. Napa State Hospital (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 213, 220, which held that such broad regulations met section 855's criteria.

The Lockhart court emphasized the need to preserve local entity's discretion over what constitutes "sufficient" equipment, personnel or facilities where regulations did not prescribe minimum standards.