2020 CAOC Awards Finalists

Deborah S. Chang, Brian J. Panish, Patrick K. Gunning and Alan Charles Dell’Ario

Rosen v. The Regents of the University of California, et al.

REQUIRING COLLEGES TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM KNOWN DANGERS
In October 2009, UCLA sophomore Katherine Rosen was finishing her organic chemistry laboratory when she was suddenly and brutally attacked by a fellow student who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and who had brought a knife to silence the voices he was hearing in his head that he believed came from Rosen. Unbeknownst to Rosen, he had been the subject of numerous emails, letters and documentation of troubled behavior, as well as reports of disturbing and threatening statements by him that should have raised red flags but were ignored because of a lack of communication between different departments within the university. This attack came just two years after a mentally ill student at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in a mass shooting, causing universities and colleges all over the world, including the University of California, to re-examine their policies and institute appropriate threat assessment and violence prevention mechanisms. Although courts nationwide had long held that K-12 schools have a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence, UCLA argued that postsecondary schools did not have a duty to protect their students from third-party misconduct, and its argument was supported by all other universities and colleges in California. After an appeals court dismissed the case, the California Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, concluded that universities and colleges have a duty to protect their students from known dangers in all curricular activities, leading to a settlement in this case. “Students are comparatively vulnerable and dependent on their colleges for a safe environment,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court. “Although a criminal act is always shocking to some degree, it is not completely unpredictable if a defendant is aware of the risk.” Legal scholars and commentators said the decision has extremely broad implications for colleges and universities throughout the country.

C. Brooks Cutter, Robert A. Buccola,Steven M. Campora and John R. Parker, Jr.

Doan, et al. v. State Farm General Ins. Co.

ENDING AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF OVER-DEPRECIATING INSURED LOSSES
After a legal battle that lasted over ten years, California consumers won the right to receive fair compensation from their insurers for their damaged personal property. For many years, State Farm shorted its policyholders by over-depreciating personal property. State Farm used a secretive “depreciation guide” – violating California law by failing to calculate depreciation based on the physical condition of property at the time of loss. State Farm’s guide calculated depreciation based on age only, even if the item had never or rarely been used. In this case, after a fire at the Doan residence, State Farm would not agree to pay what was owed, even on items that were in “like new” condition, and illegally over-depreciated the insured’s losses by more than $20,000. The case was filed in 2008 on behalf of all State Farm policyholders. In June 2009, the trial court dismissed the case, but that ruling was completely reversed on appeal in 2011, in a published decision. As the case proceeded, the attorneys learned that all California insurers calculated depreciation almost entirely through the use of a “depreciation guide,” and that State Farm failed to provide a written explanation of how it calculated depreciation, as required by California law. In the first phase of an expert-intensive trial, the trial court found entirely for the plaintiff class and held that State Farm was breaking the law in how it over-depreciated claims. A settlement was later reached before a trial on the damages to the class. The settlement provided complete relief to class members, with interest paid to class members who elected to reopen their claims and who were shorted on their payouts. As a result, policyholders and their attorneys are now able to force ALL insurance carriers in California to follow the law when adjusting personal property claims.

J. Gary Gwilliam and Randall E. Strauss

Colombo, et al. v. BNC Mortgage, Inc., et al.

JUSTICE FOR WOMEN WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE ON FRAUDULENT LENDING
Six women who worked at the Sacramento branch of BNCMortgage, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lehman Brothers that specialized in sub-prime mortgages, each complained to their superiors about fraudulent lending practices in 2005.Each of them was told to look the other way and when they persisted in expressing their concerns, these women were subjected to retaliation, sexual harassment and other forms of abuse that was designed to force them to quit. The sexual harassment was inflicted by a supervisor as a direct response to their whistle blowing about fraudulent loan packages and was sanctioned by company officials as a way to force the women either to resign or to approve falsified loans in order to get the harassment to stop. These women were sounding an alarm that went unheeded. Lax and fraudulent underwriting packages led to the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, helping to precipitate the downfall of Lehman Brothers and with it the worldwide economy. Rather than being lauded as heroes for reporting practices that ultimately led to financial ruin for many thousands of Americans, each of these women were instead victimized by the company they were trying to protect. BNC closed its doors and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in January 2008. After nearly 14 years of litigation, with bankruptcy imposing a threat that no compensation would be possible, these six women received a significant settlement. Each of them would say that they battled this corporate behemoth for so many years because of the harm caused to the public by BNC and Lehman Brothers’ actions. This case vindicated the rights of whistleblowers who were forced to resign after shedding light on corporate greed and wrongdoing, upheld the rights of sexual harassment victims in the workplace, and shed light on the fraudulent lending practices of one of the largest financial institutions in the world.

H. Gavin Long

Cunningham v. Narconon Redwood Cliffs and Bright Futures Recovery

SHOWING DRUG REHAB FACILITIES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR A PATIENT’S SUICIDE
The for-profit drug rehab business has been heavily infiltrated by Scientology through its entity Narconon. While Scientology uses Narconon to make millions and recruit members, its detox/rehab program is extremely dangerous. It is not evidence-based medicine and the detox is “cold turkey” and occurs in saunas. In 2010, 58-year-old John Cunningham injured his back, got addicted to Vicodin and later got addicted to benzodiazepines. His family found a rehab facility called “Redwood Cliffs.” Unbeknownst to them, it was actually Narconon Redwood Cliffs. The family paid “Redwood Cliffs” $37,500 for John’s rehab. Cunningham arrived at Narconon in withdrawal and needed a detox. Narconon’s detox was too dangerous for Cunningham, but Narconon wanted to keep the $37,500, so Narconon sent him to Bright Futures Recovery (BFR) for the medically assisted detox. By using BFR for Cunningham’s detox, Narconon made sure he came back to them for rehab. BFR had been licensed for only six weeks, owned by a 25-year-old former heroin addict and Narconon student. BFR horribly mismanaged Cunningham’s withdrawal. He was taken to the hospital three times in five days for the severe withdrawal symptoms. After one week at BFR, he was in such turmoil that he hanged himself at BFR. A Santa Cruz County jury awarded damages to Cunningham’s wife and two adult daughters, finding BFR 55% responsible, Narconon 35% responsible and Cunningham 15% responsible. Since 1985, 25 suicide cases have been tried in California, 17 off which were defense verdicts. Of the eight plaintiff verdicts, the Cunningham verdict is the largest.According to defense post-trial motions, there was a 1 in 368 chance in obtaining the Cunningham verdict. This verdict significantly advanced the safety of California consumers because it sent the strongest message ever to Narconon and the for-profit drug treatment industry: stop putting money ahead of safety when treating addicts.

Roger E. Booth, Carly L. Sanchez and Andrew S. Pruitt

Jacquelyn H. v. County of Riverside

STANDING UP FOR A YOUNG GIRL IMPREGNATED BY HER MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND
Jacquelyn was 11 when she told a teacher that her mother’s live-in boyfriend, Deon Welch, had been raping her on a regular basis. The teacher contacted Riverside County child protective services (CPS), as required by law. A Riverside County social worker and Hemet police found Jacquelyn’s accusation to be credible and sought to interview Welch, but they were told by the girl’s mother (who has limited intellectual capacity) that he had moved to Mexico. The investigation was closed, with the social worker reporting that Jacquelyn’s allegations were “inconclusive.” Four months later, a different Riverside County social worker learned that Welch was back in the home, but did not notify police or do anything to protect Jacquelyn; in fact, the County social worker asked Welch to sign a “safety plan” as one of Jacquelyn’s “caregivers” and requested that he supervise the children in the mother’s absence. As a result, Welch was emboldened to continue the abuse, and Jacquelyn’s mother continued to falsely believe that Jacquelyn was safe living with Welch. The sexual abuse continued, and when Jacquelyn was 13, she became pregnant; blood tests determined Welch was the father. Jacquelyn gave birth at 14, and the child was placed for adoption. Faced with overwhelming evidence of ongoing sexual abuse and severe neglect, the County CPS office had done nothing to try to remove Welch from the home, to alert Hemet police of his whereabouts or to protect Jacquelyn. Welch was able to avoid arrest until after he had impregnated Jacquelyn, more than two years after the initial report made by the teacher. A settlement, believed to be the highest ever for a single victim of sexual abuse in California, compensated Jacquelyn for her horrible abuse and led to significant changes within the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, including the resignation of its director.

Conal Doyle, Robert S. Gianelli and Joshua S. Davis

Trujillo and Harden v. United Healthcare Insurance Company

HELPING AMPUTEES GAIN PROSTHETIC LIMBS AFTER UNLAWFUL INSURANCE DENIALS
This case involved protecting amputees from predatory and unlawful claims practices by the nation’s largest health insurer, United Healthcare. Conal Doyle discovered United would deny prosthetic limbs to amputees insured through group health plans, relying on policy language that stated, “If more than one prosthetic device can meet your functional needs, benefits are available only for the prosthetic device that meets the minimum specifications for your needs.” The litigation was able to establish that United denied claims without determining and identifying an alternative device that would meet the insured’s functional needs and denied claims they admitted were covered if even one of multiple component parts that comprise a prosthetic limb were deemed “not covered” by United. United’s denial letters did not inform the insured that some component parts were covered or that an alternative device would be covered if requested. As a result, prosthetic claims nationwide were denied or delayed, leaving amputees with valid insurance coverage unable to ambulate without the use of a prosthetic limb. The case involved complex legal and factual issues and was vigorously defended. It was settled the week prior to trial after the plaintiff’s legal team had expended more than 2,000 hours on the case. The litigation was a team effort – Rob Gianelli and Josh Davis took the lead on the legal and class issues, while Conal Doyle secured the deposition testimony establishing the unlawful claims practices. This litigation forced United to change its unlawful claims practices and reprocess more than 1,000 prosthetic claims that had been denied over a five-year period, giving it a significant impact on amputee healthcare nationwide.