Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (May 2, 2017, No. B263563) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2017 WL 1709611]
Middle school teacher Katia Julian was removed from her school by police (who were attempting to investigate an alleged assault on Julian) and involuntarily detained overnight for mental health evaluation and treatment at a nearby hospital. Julian sued the school, the police, the hospital, and the physician who examined her, alleging violations of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) and her civil rights under the federal and state constitutions. Julian claimed the medical defendants failed to meet their obligations under the Act to (1) assess and evaluate whether there was adequate probable cause for her initial detention, (2) provide her with a written statement of her rights, (3) provide treatment by a physician who was designated to assess potential detainees, (4) complete an assessment and evaluation of her mental condition as soon as possible after her admission, and (5) properly prescribe medication. The trial court sustained the medical defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. The court ruled that Julian had no private right of action under these provisions of the Act, the medical defendants were protected by the Act’s immunity provision (id., § 5278), and she failed to show how the medical defendants acted under color of law (akin to state actors) or had any role in violating Julian’s civil rights. Julian appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, deciding as an issue of first impression that the provisions of the Act invoked by Julian conferred no private rights of action because they lacked clear, understandable, and unmistakable terms indicating that the Legislature intended to permit private enforcement (unlike other provisions of the Act authorizing private enforcement). The Legislature established a comprehensive statutory scheme anticipating enforcement by administrative agencies only, except where specified.
Regarding the civil rights claims, the Court of Appeal held that the medical defendants were not state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore could not be liable for violating Julian’s rights under the federal and California Constitutions. Julian failed to satisfy any of the Ninth Circuit’s tests for establishing state action by private actors: (1) the public function test, (2) the joint action test, (3) the government nexus test, and (4) the government coercion or compulsion test. Specifically, she failed to show that detention of mentally disordered individuals was a function within the exclusive prerogative of the state, or that any joint action or coercion occurred between state officials and the medical defendants. The court noted that mere “ ‘extensive government regulation of a private business is insufficient to make that business a state actor’ ” if the challenged conduct was not compelled by the state, and the medical defendants exercised independent medical judgment regarding their detention, evaluation, and treatment of Julian. Finally, Julian failed to identify any legally protected privacy interest that the medical defendants violated.
Thomas Watson
htwatson@horvitzlevy.com
Horvitz & Levy LLP
Business Arts Plaza
3601 W. Olive Ave., 8th Fl.
Burbank, CA 91505
818.995.0800
horvitzlevy.com
