This suit is simple in its nature. By law a physician has a duty to properly identify a patients condition. In the case of psychology, information is the primary facility of the physician. The fact that the mental health technician would not push to inspect the arrest and booking records and gave me a note saying that the county didn't have the resources to inspect the records of the County establishes the negligence of the Santa Barbara County Mental Department.
PAGE 2 (CT 2)
some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by that intent and/or negligence.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all actions, events and occurrences that form the basis of the complaint herein occurred in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5. The County of Santa Barbara had a duty to provide psychiatric care that followed curative and preventative measures of a physician striving to identify all aspects of a patients condition.
6. Plaintiff relied on the Mental Health Department of the County of Santa Barbara on February 20, 1998 to use available facts essential to accurately identify aspects of Plaintiffs condition and provide psychiatric evaluation of the Plaintiffs basic condition. Plaintiff relied on the Defendant to fulfill its duty by following curative and preventative measures for improvement of his identified condition.
7. Plaintiff informed psychiatric technician Rafael Serrano, on February 20, 1998, that an initial evaluation was in error and was the basic cause of severe distress and emotional depression Plaintiff was experiencing. Plaintiff requested that his intake evaluation be changed to respect information in Defendants possession. To justify inspection of information in the Defendants legal custody, Plaintiff presented to the technician, evidence, tangibly substantial to the existence identity and location of
PAGE 3 (CT 3)
information needed to identify the cause of plaintiffs condition. Plaintiff informed the technician of deaths Plaintiff believed were caused by individuals related to the cause of Plaintiffs condition. Technician Rafael Serrano stated that the "mental Health department did not have funds to inspect records in violation of the intent of; Government code 53069.5, providing for rewards for information concerning person causing death.
8. Santa Barbara County breached its duty to the Plaintiff, as a physician, by neglecting to use information in its legal custody and by failing to strive to identify, by accurate reevaluation, all aspects of Plaintiffs condition needed to apply curative and preventative measures. The Defendants identification of the Plaintiffs condition, by available information, would have established, historically, extreme behaviors, matching in varying degrees the Plaintiffs conditions, within the past populations of Santa Barbara County making the Plaintiffs accurate reevaluation possible.
9. On July 15, 1996 Plaintiff was discharged with an intake evaluation stating that Plaintiff "has fixed Delusions" concerning the source of his mental and emotional distress. Seventeen months later, in a breach of duty on February 20, 1998, the Mental Health Department of the County of Santa Barbara, as a patients physician, failed to use information in the Defendants custody needed to identify and follow curative and preventative measures for improving Plaintiffs condition in violation of; California Civil Code 855. This violation and the violation of the intent of Welfare and institutions code 7325.5 define the Defendants basic negligence in its duty to reevaluate the Plaintiffs condition by taking into consideration verifiable, identifiable facts of history, causing the Plaintiffs mental and emotional distress to dynamically elevate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10. The Defendants negligence or intent in its initial evaluation of Plaintiff, caused Plaintiff increased intensity in emotional suffering as attitudes created by the
PAGE 4 (CT 4)
evaluation effected Plaintiffs relationships with his family or other personal relationships and elsewhere. The subsequent breach of Defendants duty, on February 20, 1998, caused Plaintiffs already damaged reputation to be further compromised and Plaintiffs anxiety or fears to dynamically increase. The intentional ignorance of the validity of Plaintiffs carefully gathered, competent documentation of personal fact and facts of record was deeply injurious to Plaintiff causing dynamic hopelessness and depression in Plaintiffs condition as fears of his inability to protect his children from involvement with a historical cycle, increased, within the neglect or breach of the Defendant physicians duty.
11. The Defendants final breach of duty caused Plaintiff further decline of self esteem which elevated social dysfunction's present in his condition. Activities vital to Plaintiffs natural ability to psychological heal, over time, have been interrupted and now Plaintiffs fundamental, daily skills of coping or maintaining his emotional composure sufficiently to conduct relationships of any kind are threatened. The direct causation of Plaintiffs diminishing ability to exist; with needs fulfilled, with family, in a home with personal, emotional relationships; is due to the breach of duty, by negligence or intent, of the Defendant, the County of Santa Barbara.
12. Homere v. State of New York, 48 AD2d 422, 370 NYS2d 246 (1975) (state is liable for assault to mental patient discharged from state hospital where hospital was negligent in not obtaining reevaluation of patient to ascertain whether he was still suitable for discharge, in view of highly erratic conduct following initial evaluation.)
13. Comisky v. State of New York, 71 AD2d 699, 418 NYS2d 233 (1979) State liable for negligence in failing to adequately supervise mental patient and in permitting him to leave state hospital grounds unaccompanied despite his history of previous attempts at suicide; (patient left grounds and jumped in front of a train).
PAGE 5 (CT5)
14. Adams v. State, 71 Wash 2d 414, P2d 109 (1967) (voluntary mental patient jumped in front of car and injured herself while off the hospital ground; state mental hospital failed to follow physicians order to prevent patient from leaving ward; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff affirmed).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15. As a proximate result of the negligence or intent of Defendant, County of Santa Barbara, Plaintiff was hurt and injured in his health, strength, reputation and activity, sustaining injury to his person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical, nervous pain and suffering, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the injuries will result in some permanent disability to him. As a result of such injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof.
16. As a further proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, County of Santa Barbara, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof.
17. As a further proximate result of the oppressive negligence of Defendant, County of Santa Barbara, Plaintiffs earning capacity has been greatly impaired, both in the past and present in an amount according to proof.
18. The Defendant, County of Santa Barbara' negligence and post release liability is established by not "obtaining reevaluation " to properly identify Plaintiffs condition to be "suitable for discharge". Precedentual liability is established to the extent of including the assault of the patient after release and should be applied pursuant to California Civil Code 3333.1
PAGE 6 (CT 6)
19. Records available to the Mental Health Department, County of Santa Barbara were negligently or willfully ignored after Plaintiffs request for reevaluation, "despite his history" proven at the time of the request by tangible evidence provided to the Defendant physician, County of Santa Barbara establishing its liability under Government code 854.8
20. Curative and preventative measures were denied the Plaintiff, by the Defendant physician, County of Santa Barbara in its failure to make a dutifully informed "order" through accurate identification of the patients condition. The Defendant ignored competent presentation of documentation provided by the Plaintiff substantiating the Plaintiffs past and the available existence of historical records relating to the identity of his condition defining the Defendants breach of duty, by inaction, that was causation for the aggravation of Plaintiffs psychological injury in its severity.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them as follows.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. for general damages according to proof.
2. for medical and related expenses according to proof.
3. for loss of earnings according to proof.
4. for costs of suit incurred herein.
5 for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
Christopher A. Brown,
in PRO PER
Demurrer page 1