|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
ncy. At the time Washington completed her declaration, she had examined only the contents of the first file. When she located the second file of Lindberg-related documents, she found a retaliation claim Lindberg had filed against CDE with the State Board of Control. She confirmed that her department processes 5,000 to 6,000 appeals annually and "move files all over." She conceded, on cross-examination, that "if you're asking me whether or not something might get lost, of course that is a possibility at any time."
Cieri testified that after notice of the defective claim was returned in February 2001, she was instructed "quite adamantly" to complete and mail a claim on Lindberg's behalf containing the required jurat. Cieri testified that she clearly remembered completing the sworn statement because other claims had been returned to the office for failure to include a jurat. Consequently, she took special care to complete and mail Lindberg's claim correctly. Cieri unequivocally reaffirmed her proof of service affidavit stating that she had mailed a corrected claim to the SPB on March 16, 2001. While she recalled attaching a proof of service to the document she mailed, she had no idea why a proof of service was not attached to the March 16 claim which was introduced as an exhibit in court.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied defendants' motion to strike the Government Code section 8547.8 claim. Notwithstanding Washington's testimony that the March 16 claim did not appear in Lindberg's file, the court expressly found, based on the "definitive" testimony of Cieri, that "the requisite filing with the jurat was made."
Defendants argue that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Lindberg satisfied the Government Code section 8547.8 requirement that a proper claim be "filed" with the SPB. Contrasting section 8547.8's claim filing requirements with the more liberal provisions of the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, ยง 810 et seq.), which provides for alternative modes of claim presentation, defendants reason that because section 8547.8 does not provide a similar list of alternatives, a claimant is not permitted to file a claim by mail. Thus, although the trial court could credit Cieri's testimony that she mailed the claim on March 16, mailing alone is not enough evidence for the trial court to conclude that it was "filed."
According to defendants, the only satisfactory proof of "filing" can come from the agency itself, presumably in the form of a file stamp or endorsement on the claim, which Lindberg failed to produce at the hearing.
The argument raises an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. (Heavenly Valley v. El Dorado County Bd. of Equalization (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1334.) "We look first at the statutory language, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply it according to its terms." (F
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|