California prison workers can't proceed with claims of abusive medical exams

(CN) — A California appeals court Monday dismissed claims brought by female prison employees who said they were subjected to invasive and sexually abusive medical exams, ruling they waited too long to file their lawsuits.

The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal in Sacramento uphelda lower court’s determination that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the purported wrongdoing at the time of the examinations — or at least by 2015, when complaints were reportedly made to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The plaintiffs, women who worked for the department in Northern California between 2006 and 2016, said in their complaint they were forced to undergo medically unnecessary rectal and vaginal examinations as a condition of employment. They filed separate lawsuits beginning in 2020 against the Corrections Department, several medical groups, and two medical professionals: Dr. Gilbert Simon and physician’s assistant Godwin Okungbowa.

The consolidated complaint, filed in August 2022, included 12 causes of action ranging from battery and sexual harassment to negligent supervision and fraudulent concealment. The women said in court filings that they suffered harm and emotional distress from examinations that involved inappropriate touching and non-consensual penetration.

The three-judge appellate panel consisted of Justice Ronald Robie, appointed by Governor Gray Davis; Acting Presiding Justice Harry Hull Jr., appointed by Governor Pete Wilson; and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. They found that the plaintiffs’ own assertions undermined their case.

“The allegations read back into the amended consolidated complaint demonstrate plaintiffs had knowledge of the wrongful conduct either at the time they underwent the examinations or in 2015,” the panel wrote.

The plaintiffs argued in their appeal that the statute of limitations should not have started running until they discovered that the department’s pre-employment policy did not actually require the invasive examinations. They contended that the delayed discovery rule and fraudulent concealment principle should extend their filing deadline, because they were unaware of the department’s purported misrepresentation until later.

The justices rejected that argument. In their analysis, they emphasized that the statute of limitations begins when a plaintiff suspects wrongdoing and has an incentive to sue — not when they learn every detail of claimed misconduct.

“The wrongdoing alleged resulting from harm is the medically unnecessary exams with Simon and Okungbowa,” the panel wrote. “There are no allegations indicating plaintiffs were unaware of the wrongdoing until they discovered the concealment of the department’s policy.”

They found the distinction between knowing the exams were medically unnecessary versus knowing they weren’t required by department policy to be legally insignificant.

“From our analysis above, the complaint instead is reliant on the physical examinations being abusive because they were not medically necessary and/or were sexually abusive,” the justices wrote.

The panel noted an inconsistency in the plaintiffs’ legal theory: “Plaintiffs’ asserted interpretation of their complaint on appeal would mean that, had the Department simply made these medically unnecessary and sexually abusive exams a part of their pre-employment policy, there would have been no wrongdoing or harm.”

The trial court had applied the “sham pleading doctrine,” which allows judges to disregard assertions in amended complaints that contradict earlier pleadings. Based on the plaintiffs’ own initial filings, the court determined they had been reluctant to undergo the procedures and had complained to the department in 2015 — evidence of contemporaneous knowledge of wrongdoing.

The panel concluded that all 12 claims were fundamentally based on the medically unnecessary nature of the examinations and the claimed abuse during them.

“Given these allegations, plaintiffs had actual knowledge of wrongdoing as a matter of law outside the claims’ statutes of limitation, rendering the two tolling doctrines inapplicable,” the justices wrote.

Because the plaintiffs did not provide any means to amend their complaint to address these deficiencies, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case without allowing further revisions.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could not immediately be reached for comment.

Follow @JeremyYurow