In Barragan v. County of Los Angeles, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —-, Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 25, 2010), a court of appeal considered whether a person was precluded from seeking damages against a governmental entity under the Tort Claims Act (“TCA”) because she had failed to file a claim within six months or whether that neglect was found excusable because of the extent of the person’s injuries. The court ruled that the six-month limit specified in the TCA is not absolute, and that it may instead be overcome by evidence of excusable disability.
Facts
On April 12, 2007, Veronica Barragan was severely injured in a single-car rollover accident on a county road in a rural area of Los Angeles County (“County).” The accident left Barragan a quadriplegic, requiring assistance for feeding and breathing, and virtually bedridden for more than six months. She required medications for pain and sleeping, and suffered severe depression.
Ten months later, in February 2008, for the first time, she was able to be seated in a chair and watch television. Upon seeing a commercial for attorneys, she considered for the first time that the County may be liable for the conditions that caused her accident. She contacted an attorney and obtained counsel on February 12, 2008. On April 9, 2008, slightly less than one year after the accident, Barragan filed an application for leave to present a late claim (more than six months after her accident), and the late claim itself with the County, which denied her application. On July 17, 2008, Barragan filed suit seeking relief from the TCA’s six-month filing requirement. The trial court, finding that Barragan was not incapacitated by her injuries because she was able to communicate with others, and because she had not consulted an attorney within six months of the accident, denied her petition for relief. Barragan appealed.
Decision
The conditions under which relief from the six-month filing limit in the TCA may be granted are stated in Government Code Section 946.6, which requires petitioners to establish that one of several itemized circumstances applies. Two of those circumstances are relevant here: “Excusable Neglect,” and “Incapacity,” the court said. Although, as the trial court found, Barragan was not fully incapacitated by her injuries, in that she was able to communicate, her injuries were nonetheless devastating, and her recovery from them dominated her waking hours during the six-month period, the court found.
“The issue in this case is whether these injuries, while not sufficient to establish incapacity, must be wholly disregarded in determining whether Barragan’s neglect was excusable,” the court said. They need not, the court concluded. The court cited People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 46, in which the court ruled that a claimant failed to establish excusable neglect because no evidence indicated that conditions substantially interfered with his ability to function in daily life, take care of his personal and business affairs, or seek out legal counsel. In that case, the court here noted, the court did not state the claimant’s disability was irrelevant, but merely that it was insufficient to establish excusable neglect.
Thus, there is no absolute rule barring excusable neglect when a claimant has failed to obtain counsel within six months, the court found. “If a claimant can establish that physical and/or mental disability so limited the claimant’s ability to function and seek out counsel, such that the failure to seek counsel could itself be considered the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, excusable neglect is established,” the court said.
Paralyzed, depressed, in pain and under the influence of medication, Barragan’s attention during the six-month period following her accident was reasonably directed toward relearning the basic tasks of every day life. That is how a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances would react, the court said. Excusable neglect was therefore established. The order denying relief from the TCA filing requirements was reversed and remanded with directions to enter a new order granting relief.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona G. Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500