Daily Blast December 6, 2012

On December 6, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Dicampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (December 6, 2012, S194501) ____ Cal.4th ____, analyzing Government Code section 915, subdivision (a), which establishes the manner of delivery of a claim against the government. (Slip opn., p. 1.) The Supreme Court rejected the appellate court’s holding that a claim “may substantially comply with the [Government Claims Act] . . . if it is given to a person or department whose functions include the management or defense of claims against the defendant entity.” (Id. at pp. 1-2.) The court emphasized that a claim must satisfy the express delivery provisions language of the statute, which require a claim to be delivered or mailed to the “clerk, secretary or auditor” or actually received by the “clerk, secretary or auditor, or board of the local public entity.” (Id. at p. 2 quoting Gov. Code, § 915, subds. (a) & (e).)

The case arose out of injuries sustained by the plaintiff during a surgery at Valley Medical Center, a hospital owned by the County of Santa Clara. (Slip opn., p. 2.) The plaintiff’s attorney delivered copies of a letter giving notice of his intent to sue to an employee of the medical staffing office in the hospital’s administration building. (Id. at p. 3.) The letter was addressed to the doctors and the Risk Management Department of the Medical Center and included a request that it be forwarded to the recipient’s insurance carrier. (Ibid.) However, the letter did not request that it be forwarded to any of the statutorily designated recipients in section 915 and it was never served, presented, or mailed to the county clerk or the clerk of the board. (Ibid.) In holding that the plaintiff “substantially complied” with the presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act, the appellate court relied upon Jamison v. State of California (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 513, which held that “upon any responsible official of the entity, but not the statutory officer, is sufficient if the party served has the duty to notify the statutory agent.” (Id. at pp. 12-13.)

The Supreme Court reversed and held that the appellate court erred by failing to adhere to the plain language of section 915. (Slip opn., p. 9.) The claim was never delivered or mailed to the “clerk, secretary or auditor” and the “clerk, secretary or auditor, or board” never actually received the claim. As a result, neither of section 915’s specific requirements for compliance were met. (Id. at p. 8.) Further, the court explained that “placing a duty on a public employee who receives a misdirected claim to forward it to the proper agency, Jamison improperly shifted the responsibility for presenting a claim from the claimant to the public entity.” (Id. at pp. 15-16.) It also creates uncertainty about how and where claims must be delivered. (Id. at p. 16.) As a result, the court disapproved of Jamison v. State of California, supra, 31 Cal.App.3d 513. (Ibid.)

Related Practices

• Appellate