Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482

In this California Supreme Court case Horvitz & Levy LLP represented Harbor Regional Center, one of 21 non-profit regional centers created by the Lanterman Act that have responsibility for procuring and coordinating the provision of care and services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Regional centers locate individuals with developmental disabilities, help formulate plans for their care and assistance, and enter into contracts with licensed health care providers and other third-party vendors who are capable of putting the regional centers’ care and treatment plans into effect.

The Supreme Court granted Horvitz & Levy’s petition for review to determine whether regional centers can be held vicariously liable under a “nondelegable duty” theory for the negligence of the vendors who provide services to developmentally disabled individuals, where the regional centers have no duty or power to provide those services themselves. The Court also granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s prior decision overturning summary judgment in favor of Harbor resolved the vicarious liability issue adversely to Harbor Regional Center and constituted law of the case.

The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Harbor was vicariously liable for a third party vendor’s negligence. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had misread the pertinent statutes and regulations, incorrectly assuming that regional centers have an obligation to provide treatment to individuals with developmental disabilities and merely have the option to retain third party vendors to discharge their statutory obligations. In fact, the statutes and regulations preclude regional centers from providing direct care and treatment and instead mandate that regional centers engage in very limited oversight and review once individuals are under the care of third party vendors.

The Supreme Court also rejected the Court of Appeal’s reliance on the law of the case doctrine, ruling that the court had misconstrued its own prior opinion. The first opinion analyzed only whether the statutory duties imposed on Harbor Regional Center itself could be delegated to third party vendors, and correctly concluded they could not be so delegated. However, the Court of Appeal’s first opinion did not analyze whether regional centers are vicariously liable for the independent negligence of third party vendors. That was the issue raised in the second appeal, and the answer to that question was not governed by the law of the case doctrine. (Click to see Supreme Court’s opinion.)

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map