Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. California Department of Public Health (May 23, 2018, A150545) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2018 WL 3007483], ordered published June 15, 2018
The California Department of Health fined St. Francis Hospital $50,000 for lacking appropriate sponge-count policies after a sponge was left in a patient during surgery. At a subsequent hearing, an administrative law judge found there was no basis for the fine because St. Francis had adequate policies. The Department rejected the ALJ’s findings and issued a final decision affirming the fine “effective immediately.” St. Francis sought reconsideration, which the Department denied without notifying St. Francis that its request was void. St. Francis then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The trial court sustained the Department’s demurrer, ruling that (1) because the Department’s decision was effective immediately, St. Francis was not permitted to seek reconsideration and therefore its writ petition was untimely (not filed within the 30-day deadline in Government Code section 11523), and (2) there was no basis for equitable tolling because St. Francis’s untimely filing was attributable to a mistake of law, rather than a mistake of fact.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that St. Francis’s request for reconsideration did not extend its deadline for seeking writ relief. Under Government Code section 11521, the time to request reconsideration expires on the effective date of the Department’s decision. Because the Department made its decision “effective immediately,” it eliminated St. Francis’s opportunity to seek reconsideration. St. Francis had waited to file its writ petition until the Department decided its reconsideration request—41 days after the “effective immediately” decision—and thus its petition was untimely. Additionally, the court held that equitable tolling did not apply. Such tolling is available when a party with multiple available remedies pursues one in a timely manner. Here, however, St. Francis’ request for reconsideration was not an available remedy since reconsideration was barred by section 11521. Moreover, the Department’s failure to inform St. Francis that its request for reconsideration was void (because of section 11521) did not equitably toll or estop the Department from asserting the statutory deadline because the Department made no affirmative representations that caused St. Francis’s mistaken understanding of the law and St. Francis could not reasonably rely on the Department to correct its own legal misunderstandings.
Prepared by H. Thomas Watson and Peder K. Batalden, Horvitz & Levy, LLP
California Society for Healthcare Attorneys
1215 K Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
T 916.552.7605 | F 916.552.2607
