Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01183/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01183-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Arthur L. Johnson,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dr. Ortiz, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-1183-DCB P

ORDER

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is before the Court. In response, Plaintiff has filed

his opposition, as well as a Motion to Amend.

Background

Plaintiff Arthur L. Johnson is confined in the Correctional Training Facility in

Soledad, California.

In his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sued the following Defendants: Doctors

Ortiz, Salazar, Kushner, Castillo, Vilaysane, and Diep; Nurse Practioners Emler and

Doehring; and Registered Nurse Corona. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Corona was a

utilization management nurse “responsible for all [Utilization Management] Review

Processing for health care services for all prisoners at [Pleasant Valley State PrisonCoalinga].” Plaintiff alleged that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over his claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and invoked the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over his state

court claims of negligence/malpractice and failure to discharge a mandatory duty.

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff made the following allegations:

1. On January 13, 2005, Plaintiff, after complaining about rapid

heartbeat and weight loss, was seen by Defendant Ortiz.

Defendant Ortiz ordered a blood test.

2. On February 1, 2005, Defendant Ortiz informed Plaintiff that

the blood test showed a positive result for hypothyroidism,

prescribed a thyroid medication, and scheduled a follow-up

appointment in a month. On February 25th, Defendant Ortiz

examined Plaintiff, who had twice complained about increased

heart palpitations and other symptoms, and informed Plaintiff

that he would be scheduled to see an “expert” who would

perform a thyroid scan.

3. On April 26, 2005, Plaintiff was taken to a hospital to see an

endocrinologist, but the endocrinologist was unable to conduct

the thyroid scan because prison medical staff had not informed

Plaintiff that he needed to stop his thyroid medication before the

scan. The endocrinologist advised medical staff to stop

Plaintiff’s medication for six weeks.

4. On June 13, 2005, Plaintiff was told that he would be getting a

thyroid scan. On June 15th, Plaintiff informed a nurse that he

was experiencing severe heart palpitations, constant shortness

of breath, and fatigue. The nurse told Plaintiff that his

complaints would be reported to Defendant Ortiz. The nurse

also informed Plaintiff that the thyroid scan appointment had

been cancelled by Defendant Corona. On June 17th, Plaintiff

received “lab work” and was informed that he would be started

back on this thyroid medication. On July 5th, Plaintiff was seen

by Defendant Ortiz, who informed Plaintiff that the results of

the June 17th lab work were not in Plaintiff’s file. Defendant

Ortiz told Plaintiff to “try and relax.”

5. On August 11, 2005, Plaintiff received a thyroid scan. On

September 8th, Plaintiff complained ofsevere heart palpitations,

was evaluated by a nurse, was informed that he potentially had

cardiac arrhythmia, and was returned to his cell. On September

9th, Defendant Ortiz saw Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff that he

needed to have his thyroid medication restarted, and stated that

he would review the results of the thyroid scan and would see

Plaintiff “soon.”

6. On September 16, 2005, Defendant Salazar saw Plaintiff.

Plaintiff informed Defendant Salazar of his health problems, but

Defendant Salazar made no diagnosis and simply told Plaintiff

to take care of himself. On October 12th, Plaintiff was

supposed to meet with Defendant Salazar to review the thyroid

scan report, but the report had been misplaced, and Plaintiff’s

appointment was rescheduled.

7. On December 12, 2005, Defendant Kushner reviewed the

thyroid scan report with Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that he

needed Ablation therapy (Ablation) and that his heart

- 2 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

palpitations and arrhythmia were caused by Plaintiff’s

hyperthyroidism.

8. On February 16, 2006, Defendant Emler informed Plaintiff that

his thyroid was abnormally large, his uptake was abnormal, and

his palpitations were due to cardiac problems. Defendant Emler

informed Plaintiff that he would see an endocrinologist as soon

as possible and requested a thyroid uptake test for the following

week.

9. On March 3, 2006, an endocrinologist saw Plaintiff, informed

Plaintiff that he needed immediate Ablation, and told Plaintiff

that prison staff would have to “schedule the correct process so

that Plaintiff could obtain the medication and correct treatment

and follow up.”

10. On March 16, 2006, Defendant Castillo met with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff informed Defendant Castillo of his symptoms and

informed Defendant Castillo that the endocrinologist had

recommended Ablation. Defendant Castillo discontinued

Plaintiff’s thyroid medication and prescribed a different

medication. He did not start Ablation.

11. On April 12, 2006, Defendant Castillo informed Plaintiff that

Defendant Castillo was requesting a blood test and that Plaintiff

would soon be receiving Ablation. The blood test was

performed on May 2nd.

12. On June 1, 2006, Defendant Castillo saw Plaintiff, told him that

he would be given Ablation very soon based on the result of the

blood test, and advised Plaintiff to stop taking his medication so

another test could be performed. A blood test was performed on

July 5th and a thyroid stimulation hormone test (TSH) was

performed on July 17th.

13. On August 3, 2006, Plaintiff saw Defendant Emler to discuss

Ablation treatment. On August 16th, Plaintiff saw Defendant

Castillo, complained about his symptoms, and pleaded to start

receiving Ablation.

14. On August 24, 2006, Defendant Vilaysane saw Plaintiff, placed

Plaintiff back on medication, and ordered another TSH test. On

September 14th, Plaintiff went to the medical department

because his heart was racing, his vision was blurry, and he was

dizzy. A nurse informed him that he would soon be given

Ablation.

15. On September 20, 2006, the endocrinologist saw Plaintiff,

explained that Plaintiff needed to be started on Ablation, and

stated that repeated consultations were unnecessary because

hyperthyroidism had already been diagnosed. Plaintiff was

placed back on medication.

16. On September 26, 2006, Plaintiff saw Defendant Vilaysane to

discuss scheduling Plaintiff for Ablation. On October 25th,

Defendant Vilaysane informed Plaintiff that he would be seen

- 3 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by an endocrinologist soon for a followup. On November 15th,

Defendant Vilaysane told Plaintiff that he needed another TSH

test and a cardiac exam. On December 6th, Defendant

Vilaysane explained that the TSH test results were high and that

Plaintiff was at risk for a heart attack. Plaintiff explained that

the endocrinologist had stated in September that Plaintiff should

have been started on Ablation as soon as possible. Defendant

Vilaysane ordered more blood tests.

17. On February 2, 2007, Defendant Vilaysane examined Plaintiff,

told Plaintiff that he was scheduled to see an endocrinologist,

and that he was suffering from anemia. Defendant Vilaysane

ordered more blood tests.

18. On February 14, 2007, Plaintiff saw the endocrinologist, who

stated that he was very disappointed that prison medical staff

had not given Plaintiff Ablation and stressed that it was

extremely important for Plaintiff to have the treatment. The

endocrinologist recommended that Plaintiff at least restart the

thyroid medication.

19. On March 16, 2007, Defendant Vilaysane saw Plaintiff and told

Plaintiff that he would see the endocrinologist again soon.

Defendant Vilaysane discontinued Plaintiff’sthyroid medication

after Plaintiff complained of hot and cold flashes.

20. On March 25, 2007, after complaining of constipation,

confusion, and pain, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Diep, who

opined that the constipation was caused by Plaintiff’s

hyperthyroidism and submitted a request for Plaintiff to see an

endocrinologist.

. . . .

. . . .

21. On April 12, 2007, Plaintiff saw Defendant Doehring, who

reviewed Plaintiff’s medical file and determined that he needed

Ablation, ordered Plaintiff’s test results, and prescribed a

medication for Plaintiff’s heart palpitations.

22. On July 22, 2007, Plaintiff was having heart palpitations, was

diagnosed with coronary ischemic arrhythmia, and received

nitroglycerine while en route to a medical center. At the

medical center, the doctor explained that Plaintiff was suffering

from Bradycardia “as a result of the hyperthyroid condition that

he had been left in for years.” The doctor stated that Plaintiff

should receive Ablation as soon as possible, the thyroid

medication should be discontinued, and the heart palpitation

medication probably caused damage to Plaintiff’s heart.

23. On July 31, 2007, Plaintiff saw Defendant Doehring and

explained that his symptoms were ongoing and that he had

repeatedly requested and been prescribed Ablation. Defendant

Doehring stated that she was doing all she could.

- 4 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. On September 27, 2007, Plaintiff was seen at a radiology

medical group and was given a thyroid uptake scan. It was

again concluded that Plaintiff should receive Ablation as soon

as possible.

25. On October 3, 2007, Defendant Doering stated that Plaintiff

would be getting Ablation.

26. On November 8, 2007, twenty-three months after Defendant

Kushner first informed Plaintiff that he needed Ablation,

Plaintiff received Ablation.

Plaintiff also alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR) “has a policy where a Doctor will personally diagnose a patient, prescribe

medication and treatment, and a CDCR committee will override the diagnosis and

recommendation for medication and do so without any input or communication with an

inmate or the doctor that originally set forth a plan of treatment.”

Plaintiff contended that the following “cumulated into a series of incidents amounting

into countless delays, denials and intentional interferences of Plaintiff’s access to qualified

medical personnel constituting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical

condition”: (1) the actions of Defendants Ortiz and Corona from April 26, 2005 through

September 9, 2005; (2) the actions of Defendants Kushner, Salazar, Emler, and Castillo from

September 16, 2005 through August 16, 2006; and (3) the actions of Defendants Vilaysane,

Diep, and Doehring from August 24, 2006 through November 8, 2007.

Plaintiff asserted that Defendants Ortiz, Corona, Kushner, Salazar, Emler, Castillo,

Vilaysane, Diep, and Doehring (1) “failed to discharge their mandatory duty pursuant to

California Government Code § 815.6, which is [to not] inflict any treatment or allow any

lack of care, . . . which would injure or impair the health of any prisoner in their custody”;

and (2) were negligent under California law because they “failed to use such skill, prudence

and diligence as other members of the medical profession commonly possess and exercise.”

This Court issued a service order allowing Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendant Corona and on state law claims under California

Government Code § 815.6 and for negligence/malpractice against Defendants Ortiz, Corona,

Kushner, Salazar, Emler, Castillo, Vilaysane, Diep, and Doehring.

- 5 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue, as follows:

Plaintiff failed to plead and show proof of compliance with the California's

Government Claims Act which requires that a claim against a state employee

be presented to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board no

more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov't Code

§§900.2, 905, 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2. Presentation of a timely

claim is a prerequisite to maintaining a cause of action against a public entity.

Creighton v. City of Livingston, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1224-1225 (E.D. Cal.

2009). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege

compliance with the Government Claims Act. State v. Superior Court of Kings

County (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1245. In general, no suit for money

or damages may be maintained against a government entity unless a formal

claim has been presented to such entity and rejected, or said claim is deemed

rejected by the passage of time. Gov. Code §§945.4, 945.6. Suits against

public employees for actions taken in the course and scope of their

employment are also subject to the requirements of the claims statute. Gov.

Code §950.2. An employee is within the scope of his employment under the

claims act when he is engaged in the work he is employed to perform or when

his act is incident to his duty and was performed for the benefit of his

employer and not merely to serve his own agenda. Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42

Cal.App.4th 1746, 1750-1751. The scope of employment is viewed broadly to

include willful and malicious acts, as well as negligent acts. id. at 1751.

Failure to comply with the claims statute bars the claim against the public

entity or public employee. State of California v. Superior Court (Brodde)

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239. Where compliance with the Claims Act is

required, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing

compliance. Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477

(9th Cir. Cal. 1995). The plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving

compliance with the California Government Claims Act. The filing of a timely

claim is an essential element of a cause of action against a public entity or

employee. California Government Code §§950.2, 911.2(a); Wood v. Riverside

General Hospital (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th, 1113, 1119 (emphasis added).

Although Plaintiff asserts that he has exhausted his administrative remedies,

he did not plead or prove his compliance with the Government Claims Act.

The Third Amended Complaint is devoid of any mention of the Act, let alone

compliance with it and no exhibits, demonstrating compliance, are attached to

the complaint.

1

(Defendants’ Reply. at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act

bars his state law claims against the Defendants.

In response, Plaintiff claims that he properly filed a claim alleging negligence on

December 13, 2007. Defendants, as well as the Court, will take this representation as true.

Based on Plaintiff’s recitation of the facts, this results in all state claims arising before June

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

1

- 6 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13, 2007 being barred. Consequently, all state claims against Defendant Ortiz which

occurred from April 26 through September 9, 2005 are barred. All state claims against

Defendant Corona which occurred from April 26 through September 2005 are barred. In

addition, the state claims against Defendants Kushner, Salazar, Emler and Castillo, similarly

situated, are barred. All state claims that arose against Defendants Doehring, Diep, and

Vilaysane before June 13, 2007 are equally barred.

Defendants have no objection to allowing Plaintiff leave to amend the Third Amended

Complaint to allege compliance with the Claims Act as to Defendant Doehring. The Court

will not order an amendment, but will require the Plaintiff to file an Offer of Proof as to any

notice of claim filed with reference Defendants Doehring. Diep and Vilaysane.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the state law claims against

Defendants Corona, Ortiz, Kushner, Salazar, Emler and Castillo (Doc. No. 28) is

GRANTED and Defendants Ortiz, Kushner, Salazar, Emler and Castillo are dismissed from

this action with prejudice. Defendant Corona remains a Defendant as to the claim of

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismissthe state law claims

against Defendant Doehring is GRANTED on all claims based on acts occurring before June

13, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is

DENIED. Plaintiff should file an Offer of Proof (brief and supporting documents as

attachments) on or before July 23, 2010 with the Court as to any notice of claim filed with

reference to state claims against Defendants Doehring, Diep and Vilaysane.

DATED this 24 day of June, 2010.

th

- 7 -

Case 1:08-cv-01183-DCB Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 7 of 7