California Court Reaffirms That Litigation Threat Letters Should Be Treated As Claims Under The Government Claims Act

Published date24 August 2022
Subject MatterGovernment, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Compliance, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
Law FirmHanson Bridgett LLP
AuthorMr David C. Casarrubias and Alexandra V. Atencio

On June 28, 2022, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (2022) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, 2022 WL 2313164 (Simms), holding that a claimant petitioning for relief from California's Government Claims Act presentation requirement may assert actual and timely claim presentment, and is not required to simultaneously file suit alleging compliance with claim requirements to preserve the issue. In evaluating Simms' allegation of actual compliance, the Court determined that the letter Simms sent to Bear Valley threatening litigation, despite being deficient in certain respects, constituted a timely claim, triggering Bear Valley's statutory duty to notify Simms of the defects, or risk waiving its defenses as to the claim's sufficiency. Because Simms' letter constituted a timely claim, Simms did not need to seek relief from the claim presentation requirement and was permitted to file his complaint. (Simms, at p. *2.)

Background

Plaintiff Simms suffered injuries from a fall and sought treatment at a hospital operated by the Bear Valley Community Healthcare District ("Bear Valley"). (Simms, at p. *1.) Simms was dissatisfied with the care provided during his follow-up treatments and sent a letter to Bear Valley in May of 2018 threatening to "fil[e] a lawsuit for restitution" if, among other things, the hospital continued to provide inadequate care. (Ibid.) He did not receive a response to his May 2018 letter and sent another letter in July of 2019 titled "90-Day Notice of Intent to Sue as required by California Code of Civil Procedure ' 364." (Id. at p. *2.) Bear Valley treated the July 2019 letter as a claim under the Government Claims Act and notified Simms that his claim was not timely presented, thereby rejecting the claim. (Ibid.) Simms sought late claim relief from Bear Valley, which was denied, and then petitioned the Superior Court for relief from the claim presentation requirement. (Ibid.) In his petition, Simms alternatively argued that he had actually timely complied with the claim presentation requirement when he sent Bear Valley his initial letter in May of 2018. (Ibid.)

The Superior Court denied Simms' petition as untimely. (Simms, at p. *2.) Separately, the court found that Simms' earlier May 2018 letter did not qualify as a claim because it lacked the necessary information required by the Government Claims Act. (Ibid.)

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered two...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT