DiCampli-Mintz

DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara

Bad Law
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111·2012 Cal. LEXIS 11151·55 Cal. 4th 983·289 P.3d 884
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 6, 2012S194501California5,569 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Government Code section 915, subdivision (a) (section 915(a)), establishes the manner of delivery of a claim against the government. It requires that a claim be presented to a local public entity by “[delivering it to the clerk, secretary or auditor,” or by mailing it to one of these officials “or to the governing body.” Section 915, subdivision (e) (section 915(e)), further provides that a misdirected claim “shall be deemed to have been presented in compliance” with section 915 if “[i]t is actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor or board of the local public entity.” (§ 915(e)(1), italics added.)

Here, the Court of Appeal held that “a claim may substantially comply with the act, notwithstanding failure to deliver or mail it to one of the specified recipients, if it is given to a person or department whose functions include the management or defense of claims against the defendant entity.” We reject this judicial expansion of the statutory requirements and affirm that a claim must satisfy the express delivery provisions language of the statute.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2006, Dr. Bao-Thuong Bui and Dr. Abraham SHar performed surgery on plaintiff Hope…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.