Update: Trial Court Ruling That Defense Attorneys Estopped Public Entity from Attacking Plaintiff's Failure to Present Claim Reversed; 9th Circuit's Interpretation of Government Code section 845.6 Rejected -- Decision Affirmed on Rehearing

In Castaneda v. Department of Corrections, published July 26, 2012, the Second District Court of Appeals, Division 3, reversed a jury verdict in favor of the estate of a deceased former prison inmate and his daughter; and directed that judgment be entered in the defendant's favor.  The appellate court granted rehearing of the case, and depublished the July 26 opinion.  But on January 15, 2013, it issued an opinion on rehearing that reaffirmed its decision.

The case arose out of the diagnosis and treatment of the prisoner's illness, which turned out to be cancer that eventually proved fatal.  There was evidence that healthcare providers' recommendations that he be given treatment on an "ASAP" basis were not followed.  The prisoner presented a claim for damages before he died.  After he died, his estate continued his litigation.  His daughter asserted a cause of action for wrongful death; but she did not present a claim.  The trial court held that the defendant was estopped from asserting the daughter's failure to present a claim.

In reversing the resulting jury verdict and judgment, the court ruled:

• The prisoner's presentation of his own claim did not excuse the daughter from presenting her own claim once the prisoner died and the daughter sued for her own damages.
• That the defense counsel did not raise the daughter's failure to present a claim until after the deadline for her to pursue late-claim proceedings did not estop it from asserting that she failed to state a cause of action due to the lack of a claim.  A defense attorney's silence in the light of a represented plaintiff's failure to present a claim does not satisfy the elements of estoppel.
• The court papers the daughter served after litigation was filed could not serve as claims or documents that should have been treated as claims.
• Because the defendant public entity provided the prisoner with medical care, the plaintiffs could not sue it under Government Code section 845.6 for failure to summon immediate medical care.  
• The court rejected the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' interpretation of section 845.6 in Jett v. Penner (9th Cir. 2006) 439 F.3d 1091.  Jett held that the failure to summon medical care can arise more than once during a patient's treatment.  Castaneda holds that once the public entity provides the prisoner with medical care, its duty to summon immediate medical care is satisfied; and subsequent exercises of medical judgment cannot give rise to entity liability for the medical care.