Jones v. Badagliacco-Cabrera CA4/1

Filed 12/2/15 Jones v. Badagliacco-Cabrera CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA JONES, D066359
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00057375-
CU-OE-NC)
TERRI BADAGLIACCO-CABRERA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Earl H.
Maas III, Judge. Affirmed.
Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Marilyn R. Moriarty and Julie R. Dann, for
Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Laura Jones appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Terri Badagliacco-
Cabrera and Palomar Health on Jones's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, defamation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of civil
rights. Jones contends we must reverse the judgment because, for numerous reasons, the
trial court improperly found there were no triable issues of material fact as to any of her
causes of action. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Palomar Health hired Jones as a full-time registered nurse in June 2008. Her
employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Palomar Health
and the California Nurses Association (association). Article 3.A.8 of the collective
bargaining agreement provided: "Subject to the provisions contained in this Agreement
and the laws and regulations governing patient care and the practice of nursing, [Palomar
Health] has the right to operate its business, which includes the exclusive right to
determine, change, discontinue, alter, or modify in whole or in part, temporarily or
permanently, any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] Reasonable standards of performance, and
whether any employee meets such standards." Article 6.A of the collective bargaining
agreement provided: "A Registered Nurse who has successfully completed the
probationary period may only be disciplined or discharged for just cause."
On January 16, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m., while Jones was working in Palomar
Health's trauma unit, she received test results indicating one of her patients had a
critically low potassium level. Based on the patient's potassium level, a standing
physician's order (potassium protocol) required the administration of potassium to the
patient. Jones knew from the patient's test results and the potassium protocol, she had to
administer potassium to the patient. However, by 9:45 a.m., she still had not
2
administered the potassium. According to her, she was in the process of administering
the potassium when Cabrera, also a registered nurse, ordered her to go on a break. She
had not administered potassium earlier because she had been discussing the patient with
the hospitalist, following the hospitalist's order to administer additional fluids, locating
the potassium protocol, and then changing the patient's intravenous lines to prevent the
potassium from being administered with incompatible medicines.
Before Jones went on her break, she did not inform Cabrera the patient needed
potassium. However, while Jones was on her break, Cabrera determined both that the
patient needed potassium and that Jones had not administered any. Consequently,
Cabrera administered potassium to the patient and then reported the matter to her
supervisors.
Palomar Health commenced an investigation into Jones's failure to timely
administer potassium to the patient. Three days after the incident, while the investigation
was pending, Jones accessed the patient's medical record and made changes erroneously
indicating she had administered potassium to the patient prior to her break. Specifically,
she changed the patient's medical record to indicate she administered potassium to the
patient at 8:15 a.m., which was before she received the test results showing the patient's
need for potassium. According to Jones, she had accessed the patient's medical record to
correct charting errors she made on January 17 and had mistakenly and inaccurately
changed the patient's records for January 16.
Palomar Health's disciplinary guidelines permit Palomar Health to take
disciplinary action against a nurse if the nurse fails to meet Palomar Health's standards of
3
performance. Among the grounds for discipline stated in the guidelines are falsification
of medical records and unsatisfactory work performance or conduct, including neglect of
duty.
A week after the incident Jones and an association representative met with
Palomar Health's director of critical care and telemetry (director). They discussed
Palomar Health's concerns regarding the patient's care and the false information added to
the patient's medical record. Two days later, Palomar Health sent Jones a written notice
of intent to terminate her employment (termination notice).
Six days after Palomar Health sent the termination notice, Jones and an association
representative attended a pretermination, or Skelly, hearing. (See Skelly v. State
Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, 215 [holding before a public employee may be
discharged, the public employer must accord the public employee certain procedural
rights, including the right to respond orally or in writing to the person authorizing the
discharge].) Jones submitted a written response to the charges, explaining why she had
not administered the potassium prior to her break and admitting her charting was
inaccurate.
Following the Skelly hearing, Palomar Health's interim manager of critical care
and telemetry (interim manager) provided Jones with written notice of its pretermination
response. This document informed Jones she would be discharged effective February 16,
2012. The document also informed her the grounds for discharge included her failure to
follow Palomar Health's adult inpatient care practice standards and her violation of
4
Palomar Health's disciplinary guidelines. Palomar Health subsequently reported Jones's
discharge to the state Board of Registered Nursing (Board).1
The day after Jones's discharge became effective, the association filed a grievance
on her behalf alleging Palomar Health discharged her without just cause. However, the
association declined to proceed with the grievance until the outcome of any Board
proceedings.
Notwithstanding the pendency of her grievance and the Board proceedings, in
September 2012, Jones filed a lawsuit against Cabrera and Palomar Health. Her
operative second amended complaint (complaint) alleged causes of action for defamation
per se, libel, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and deprivation of property interest in violation of civil rights. The first
three causes of action are alleged against both Cabrera and Palomar Health. The last two
causes of action are alleged against Palomar Health only.
Palomar Health and Cabrera moved for summary judgment or, alternatively,
summary adjudication on the grounds Jones's entire action was barred by the exhaustion
of administrative remedies doctrine and she otherwise could not establish the necessary
1 There were other instances during Jones's employment when Palomar Health
addressed performance deficiencies with her. In February 2009 Palomar Health placed
her on a performance development plan because she had difficulty managing her time
and was unable to provide complete and accurate assessments of her patients during
multidisciplinary rounds. In April 2009 Palomar Health gave her a verbal warning for
failing to follow doctor's orders to "type cross and transfuse" a patient and to obtain an
electrocardiogram for a patient having chest pain. In June 2009 Palomar Health
suspended her for two shifts because she failed to care for and document the care for a
patient for an entire shift. Among the care she failed to provide was a "now" order to
administer medication.
5
elements to prevail on any of her causes of action. After some procedural wrangling not
directly relevant to this appeal, the trial court granted the motion, albeit without a detailed
explanation for its determination.
While the trial court proceedings were pending, the Board filed an accusation
alleging Jones engaged in unprofessional, incompetent conduct by failing to immediately
administer potassium to the patient after learning the patient's already low potassium
levels had dropped. While this appeal was pending, Jones entered into a stipulated
settlement with the Board. As part of the settlement, and solely for purposes of the Board
proceedings, she admitted the truth of the allegations in the accusation. Consequently,
and also as part of the settlement, the Board issued a letter publicly reproving her. We
granted Palomar Health and Cabrera's motion to take judicial notice of the Board's
actions, but not the truth of any factual findings underlying them. (Evid. Code, §§ 452,
subds. (c) & (h), 459, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a); Steed v. Department of
Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 112, 120-122.)
DISCUSSION
"Summary judgment is properly granted when the papers show there is no triable
issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. [Citation.] When the defendant is the moving party, he must show either that (1)
one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established, or (2) there is a complete
defense. [Citation.] Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the
existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to that cause of action or defense.
[Citation.] We review the trial court's decision to grant defendant summary judgment de
6
novo. We review the ruling, not the rationale." (Silva v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 65
Cal. App. 4th 256, 261 (Silva), fn. omitted.)
I
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith Dealing
Jones's complaint alleged Palomar Health breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing inherent in the collective bargaining agreement by discharging her
without just cause.2 " 'Good cause' in the context of implied employment contracts is
defined as: 'fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer,
that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or
pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered
through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a
chance for the employee to respond.' [Citation.] 'Three factual determinations are
relevant to the question of employer liability: (1) did the employer act with good faith in
making the decision to terminate; (2) did the decision follow an investigation that was
appropriate under the circumstances; and (3) did the employer have reasonable grounds
2 The complaint also alleged Palomar Health breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by misrepresenting to others Jones "was incompetent, uncaring and
indifferent about patient care." While the record shows the collective bargaining
agreement contains a provision precluding discharge except for just cause, the record
does not show the agreement contains a provision addressing Palomar Health's ability to
report performance deficiencies to others. "The covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one contracting party from
unfairly frustrating the other party's right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually
made. [Citation.] The covenant thus cannot ' "be endowed with an existence
independent of its contractual underpinnings." ' [Citations.] It cannot impose substantive
duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms
of their agreement." (Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 317, 349-350.)
7
for believing the employee had engaged in the misconduct.' " (Serri v. Santa Clara
University (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 830, 872-873, citing Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall
Internat., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 93, 107-108 and Silva, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 264.)
If the facts are undisputed or admit of only one conclusion, the question of an employer's
liability may be decided by a motion for summary judgment. (Silva, at p. 264; Binder v.
Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841.)
Regarding the first factual determination, there is no evidence Palomar Health had
a wrongful motive in determining there was good cause for discharging Jones. While
Jones asserts Cabrera acted out of jealously or personal animus, there is no evidence
Cabrera had an investigative or decision-making role in Jones's discharge. There is also
no evidence any of the people with investigative or decision-making roles acted out of
personal animus.
Regarding the second factual determination, "investigative fairness contemplates
listening to both sides and providing employees a fair opportunity to present their
position and to correct or contradict relevant statements prejudicial to their case, without
the procedural formalities of a trial." (Silva, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 264.) On this
point, Palomar Health provided evidence showing the director and interim manager
investigated Jones's conduct. As part of their investigation, they interviewed Jones,
interviewed Cabrera, interviewed the charge nurse, reviewed the patient's chart, and
reviewed the medication dispensing system report for the day of the incident. In addition,
the matter was reviewed by the chief nursing officer and a clinical nurse specialist. With
the assistance of an association representative, Jones presented her version of events to
8
the interim manager during the investigation and to the director at the Skelly hearing. She
also submitted written responses to the grounds for discharge identified in the termination
notice. The interim manager formally replied to Jones's written responses in the letter
confirming her discharge. This process met the requisite fairness requirements and "was
appropriate given that it was conducted 'under the exigencies of the workaday world and
without benefit of the slow-moving machinery of a contested trial.' " (Silva, at p. 275.)
Regarding the third factual determination, there is no evidence Palomar Health's
reasons for discharging Jones were trivial, arbitrary, unrelated to business needs or
pretextual. Indeed, the fact the Board investigated Jones's conduct and filed an
accusation against her establishes the conduct was genuinely concerning.
There is also no evidence Palomar Health's decision to discharge Jones for
violating its adult inpatient care practice standards was an unreasoned conclusion
unsupported by substantial evidence. Jones does not dispute she delayed in administering
potassium to the patient and altered the patient's medical record in a manner erroneously
making it appear the delay did not occur. She also does not dispute the patient's
potassium level was critically low and potentially life threatening, or that Palomar
Health's adult inpatient care practice standards required "interventions [to be] delivered in
a manner that minimizes complications and life-threatening situations." Rather, in her
view, she acted reasonably under the circumstances and the patient did not suffer any
lasting harm from the delay in administering potassium. However, the fact she and
Palomar Health disagree in their conclusions is not sufficient evidence to create a triable
issue about whether Palomar Health's lacked reasonable grounds for its decision. (See,
9
e.g., Silva, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 277 [employee's denial of wrongdoing does not
raise a triable issue regarding the reasonableness of employer's discharge decision].)
II
Defamation and Libel Causes of Action
" 'The tort of defamation "involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c)
defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that
causes special damage." ' (Hui v. Sturbaum (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1118, citing
Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 683, 720.) Jones's defamation and libel causes of action
are based on Palomar Health's and Cabrera's alleged publication of false and defamatory
facts about Jones's professional competence to third persons in the workplace and the
community. The only evidence in the record of publications critical of Jones are
Cabrera's report about Jones's care of the patient to Palomar Health and Palomar Health's
report about Jones's discharge to the Board. Palomar Health and Cabrera contend these
publications are not actionable because Palomar Health's publication is absolutely
privileged and Cabrera's publication is conditionally privileged. We agree.
A
A publication is absolutely privileged if, among other circumstances, it is made in
an official proceeding authorized by law or during the initiation or course of any other
proceeding authorized by law and reviewable by writ of mandate. (Civ. Code, § 47,
subd. (b); Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 634, 640-641; Hansen v. Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1537, 1546.) The privilege covers
various communications intended to instigate official investigation into wrongdoing and
10
applies to all torts except for malicious prosecution. (Hansen v. Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, at pp. 1546-1547.) Palomar Health's reporting of
the reasons for Jones's discharge to the Board is covered by the absolute privilege
because the Board is responsible for disciplining the registered nurses it licenses, Palomar
Health's report instigated an official investigation by the Board into Jones's conduct, and
the Board's decision to discipline a registered nurse's license is reviewable by writ of
mandate.3 (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 2750, 2761; Gov. Code, §§ 11501, subd. (a), 11523;
see, e.g. Lee v. Board of Registered Nursing (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 793, 796; Hansen v.
Board of Registered Nursing (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 664, 669.)
B
A publication is conditionally privileged if it was made "without malice, to a
person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in
such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the
motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person
interested to give the information." (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c); Hui v. Sturbaum, supra,
222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112, fn. 2.) " ' "The existence of the privilege is ordinarily a
question of law for the court." ' " (Hui v. Sturbaum, supra, at p. 1119.)
3 Although not raised below, Palomar Health correctly points out on appeal it is also
immune from liability under Business and Professions Code section 2318, which
provides in part: [A]ny person, including, but not limited to, a … hospital … who
provides information to the board … indicating that a board licensee may be guilty of
unprofessional conduct … shall not be liable for any damages in any civil action on
account of the communication of that information to the board."
11
As Cabrera and Palomar Health share an employment relationship, they had the
requisite common interest for the privilege to apply. (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
(2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 426, 440 ["[p]arties in a business or contractual relationship have
the requisite 'common interest' for the privilege to apply"]; accord, Hui v. Sturbaum,
supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.) Thus, the only issue is whether Cabrera acted with
malice. (Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 892, 915 [if malice is shown the
common interest privilege is not simply overcome, it never applied in the first instance].)
" ' " 'The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is "actual malice" which
is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will
towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant lacked reasonable grounds, for
belief in the truth of the publication and thereafter acted in reckless disregard of the
plaintiff's rights [citations].' " ' " (Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 256, 288,
citing Taus v. Loftus, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 721-722.) Here, there is no evidence
Cabrera lacked reasonable grounds for believing Jones delayed administering potassium
to the patient. Indeed, this fact is undisputed. Nonetheless, Jones asserts Cabrera
maliciously reported the delay because Cabrera disliked Jones, was jealous of Jones's
recently acquired advanced trauma nurse certificate, and was covering up for her own
failure to provide the patient appropriate care. "To defeat summary judgment, [a
plaintiff] cannot rely on 'speculation, conjecture, imagination, or guesswork.' "
(Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 411, 418.) As Jones's
assertions about Cabrera's motivation are no more than speculation on Jones's part, they
are insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact. (Id. at p. 415 [a plaintiff must
12
produce substantial responsive evidence to establish a triable issue of material fact and
evidence that gives rise to no more than mere speculation cannot be regarded as
substantial].) Accordingly, Jones cannot establish her causes of action for defamation
and libel and Palomar Health and Cabrera are entitled to judgment on these causes of
action as a matter of law.
III
Negligent Misrepresentation Causes of Action
"The elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) the defendant made a false
representation; (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true; (3) with the
intent to deceive the plaintiff; (4) justifiable reliance on the representation; and (5)
resulting harm." (Rufini v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 299, 308.)
Jones bases her negligent misrepresentation cause of action on allegations Palomar
Health and Cabrera expressly and negligently misrepresented that her employment could
only be terminated for just cause and that she must utilize an association representative to
pursue a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement between Palomar Health
and the association.4
4 Jones also bases her cause of action on allegations Palomar Health and Cabrera
made several implied negligent misrepresentations; however, a negligent
misrepresentation claim cannot be based on an implied representation. (Lopez v. Nissan
North America, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 572, 596; Diediker v. Peelle Fin. Corp.
(1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 288, 297-298; Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121
Cal. App. 4th 282, 291, fn. 6; Wilson v. Century 21 Great Western Realty (1993) 15
Cal. App. 4th 298, 306; Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 278,
304.)
13
As to the first alleged misrepresentation, that Jones could not be discharged except
for just cause, there is no evidence this representation was false. The collective
bargaining agreement expressly provides, "A Registered Nurse who has successfully
completed the probationary period may only be disciplined or discharged for just cause."
While the parties dispute whether Palomar Health actually had good cause to discharge
Jones, the existence of this dispute is not tantamount to evidence the representation was
false.
As to the second alleged misrepresentation, that Jones had to utilize an association
representative to pursue a grievance, there is no evidence this representation, if false, was
made without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, particularly in the context of
a dispute over an employee's discharge. While the collective bargaining agreement's
grievance procedure indicates the procedure may be initiated and moved from one step to
another by a registered nurse or the association, the agreement contemplates the
procedure will be shepherded by the association and a "designated Nurse
Representative," as the procedure requires Palomar Health to provide copies of all written
responses and decisions to them. Moreover, the agreement's arbitration procedure, which
supplements the grievance procedure by providing for an evidentiary hearing for
grievances not settled by the grievance procedure, may only be initiated by the
association. Thus, when Jones asked a Palomar Health human resources employee
whether she could continue the grievance process without the association's involvement,
the human resources employee had a reasonable basis for informing her she could not.
As Jones cannot establish the alleged misrepresentations underlying her negligent
14
misrepresentation claim were false and made without reasonable grounds for believing
them to be true, she cannot establish her cause of action for negligent misrepresentation
and Palomar Health and Cabrera are entitled to judgment on this cause of action as a
matter of law.
IV
Denial of Due Process Cause of Action
The parties do not dispute Jones had a constitutionally protected property interest
in continued employment with Palomar Health. (See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 538-539 [105 S. Ct. 1487, 1491-1492, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494];
Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 207-208.) Jones's denial of due process cause of action
alleges Palomar Health violated the federal Constitution and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by
depriving her of this property interest without due process of law.
To the extent her cause of action is based on an alleged absence of good cause to
discharge her, the cause of action fails for the reasons stated in part I, ante. To the extent
her cause of action is based on an alleged failure to provide her with preremoval
safeguards, the undisputed evidence shows Palomar Health provided her with notice it
intended to discharge her, the reasons it intended to discharge her, a copy of the charges
and materials upon which it based its decision, an opportunity to respond both orally and
in writing to the person who made the discharge decision, and a written reply to her
response. These preremoval safeguards satisfy due process requirements. (Skelly, supra,
15 Cal.3d at p. 215.) Contrary to Jones's assertion, the fact the person who made the
discharge decision may have participated in the underlying investigation does not amount
15
to a deprivation of due process. "[A]llowing a single decisionmaker to undertake both
the investigative and the adjudicative functions in an administrative proceeding does not,
by itself, constitute a denial of due process." (Burrell v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 209
Cal. App. 3d 568, 581-582, citing Griggs v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 93, 98;
Binkley v. City of Long Beach (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1795, 1811.)
Finally, to the extent her cause of action is based on Palomar Health's failure to
provide her with a posttermination evidentiary hearing, the evidence shows a
posttermination evidentiary hearing was available to Jones as part of the grievance
procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement between Palomar Health and
the association. (Armstrong v. Meyers (9th Cir. 1992) 964 F.2d 948, 950 ["a public
employer may meet its obligation to provide due process through grievance procedures
established in a collective bargaining agreement"]; Jackson v. Temple University of
Commonwealth System of Higher Education (3d Cir. 1983) 721 F.2d 931, 933 (Jackson)
[posttermination arbitration available under a collective bargaining agreement provides
adequate due process safeguard].) The evidence also shows the association initiated a
posttermination grievance on Jones's behalf; however, the association decided not to
actively pursue the grievance while the Board investigated Jones's conduct. This decision
does not constitute a due process violation by Palomar Health absent evidence Palomar
Health played a role in making the decision. (Jackson, supra, at p. 933 [employer did not
deprive employee of property interest in employee's job without due process where there
is no evidence employer was involved in union's decision not to proceed with
posttermination arbitration provided for in the collective bargaining agreement].)
16
Palomar Health's deference to the association's decision does not provide such
evidence. "There is a strong public and private interest in maintaining an effective
grievance/arbitration process to settle disputes between employers and employees.
Allowing individual employees to decide which claims to arbitrate would undermine that
process." "Exclusive union control of the grievance process as the employees' sole
representative also helps achieve one of the primary purposes of the process: [¶] A prime
function of a grievance procedure is to secure uniformity in interpreting the agreement
and building up a 'law of the plant' with respect to matters not spelled out in the
agreement . . . . Vesting the Union with control of all grievances increases the likelihood
of uniformity and reduces 'a potential source of competitions and discriminations that
could be destructive of the entire structure of labor relations in the plant.' " (Armstrong v.
Meyers, supra, 964 F.2d at p. 951.) Accordingly, Jones cannot establish a cause of action
for violation of due process.
Given our conclusions, we need not address Palomar Health's contentions Jones's
complaint is barred by her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies or that Palomar
Health's and Cabrera's alleged actions are immune from liability under various
Government Code provisions. We also need not address Jones's contention the trial court
provide an inadequate decision for appellate review.
17
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McDONALD, J.
18