In Ryan v. County, published February 28, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after jury trial. A surgeon on the staff of a county hospital was terminated after his medical staff privileges lapsed and were not renewed. He alleged he was terminated for whistle-blowing about unnecessary surgeries. He sued under causes of action that included Government Code section 12653, the whistleblower-protection provision of the California False Claims Act; and Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5, which bars heath facilities from retaliating against members of the medical staff for filing complaints or participating in investigations. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to the section 1278.5 cause of action, but allowed the section 12653 cause of action to go to trial, and declined to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to that cause of action.
The appellate court reversed both rulings. Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164 held that California False Claims Act suits cannot be brought against public entities, but did not address whether the anti-retaliation provision in the act, Government Code section 12653, applied to public entity defendants. The court concluded that under section 12653's language, a retaliation claim is not available where a viable false claim case cannot be brought against the defendant. The retaliation cause of action therefore does not lie against a public entity defendant. Further, Wells established that the punitive damages provisions of the Act should not be brought against public entities. As for Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5, the court interpreted the language of the statute–which discusses state facilities as well as county and city facilities–to show a legislative intent that the action could be brought against public entities.
Leave a Reply