Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Tailfeather v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
B093679 (Cal. Ct. App. filed Feb. 13, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51176
Description
Low-Income Residents Sue Los Angeles County for Not Adopting Standards for Timely Delivery of Medical Care to Indigent
Abstract
The parties have filed their briefs on appeal in this class action
alleging that interminable delay in delivering essential medical
care to indigent residents of Los Angeles County has become the
norm in county facilities. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant county
board of supervisors’ failure to adopt any standards on the
timely provision of medical care violated their duty under state
law to provide necessary medical care to indigent residents and to
ensure its adequacy. The trial court granted defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that,
although defendant’s motion supposedly raised purely legal
issues, the court’s important factual findings about the
health care system were outside the scope of defendants’
separate statement of undisputed material facts and disputed by
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in its
legal interpretation of their statutory claims. They assert that
the state’s welfare and institutions code requires the county
to provide necessary medical care (including emergency care) to
indigent residents without any other means to care for themselves,
to provide such medical care "promptly," and to adopt
standards of . care; no other statutes excuse the county from this
mandatory duty. Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in
holding that defendants are required to provide medical care only
to the poorest of the poor (those eligible for the county’s
general relief program) and that due process requirements compel
the county to adopt some standards concerning the timely delivery
of medical care to the indigent.
Additional Information
Files
- First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandate
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification
- (Opinion on) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues
- Appellants' Opening Brief
- Respondents' Brief
- Appellants' Reply Brief
