Pollak, Vida & Barer

In Sgaraglino v. County of Ventura, published June 8, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 affirmed summary judgment for the defendant county. The plaintiffs’ decedent was involuntarily detained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 at the inpatient psychiatrict unit of a county hospital. He was discharged three days later, when a physician at the hospital determined the decedent did not meet the criteria for continuing hospitalization under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5250. One day after discharge, the decedent took his own life. Plaintiffs sued the county for negligence. They alleged they had told the hospital staff that the decedent was suicidal, and tried to have his commitment continued. They alleged the hospital released the decedent without medications, despite indications he might be suicidal. The County moved for summary judgment, based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 5113’s immunity. In opposition, the plaintiffs presented the expert declaration of a clinical psychologist who opined the decedent should not have been released against his family’s witnesses without medication. The plaintiffs argued section 5113 immunity did not apply to gross negligence. The trial court granted the motion based on section 5113 immunity.

The appellate court agreed that the county was immune from liability for releasing the decedent after his section 5150 detainment ended. Section 5113 immunizes facilities providing treatment from civil or criminal liability for any action by a person released at or before the end of the period for which the person was admitted pursuant to the provisions of the article under which he was detained. On its face, section 5113 protects the county from liability for the decedent’s post-release actions. The statute contains no exceptions for gross negligence. The expert’s declaration that the release decision did not meet the medical standard of care is irrelevant. That is the very type of argument foreclosed by section 5113’s immunity. The plaintiffs’ argument that there were triable issues under various theories other than general negligence were forfeited because the plaintiffs did not plead them and did not raise them in the trial court. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that summary judgment was improper because it might bar a cause of action against potential unnamed defendants. The only ascertainable defendant was the county. Because it was immune from liability, summary judgmetn was properly granted, and the case properly dismissed in its entirety.