Complaint

Cal. Super. - 3rd Dist.June 9, 2021

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 GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS HISTORIC ENGINE CO. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 7-341 1 TELEPHONE (213) 625-3900 FACSIMILE (2 1 3) 232-3255 GERAGOS@GERAGOS.com MARCUS PETOYAN SBN 109817 Attorneys for Plaintiff Courtney Wilson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER-HON. HOWARD G. GIBSON COURTHOUSE COURTNEY WILSON, Plaintiff, vs. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiff COURTNEY WILSON complains and alleges as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff COURTNEY WILSON is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of the County of Placer, State of California, and was employed by Defendant SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS ("Sutter"), as a registered nurse from circa November 2017 through June 14, 2019. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant Sutter is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Sacramento, California. - 1 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. RETALIATION; 2. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL 1 2 3 4 5 ;t• c2 ,co LN - cANwo 0 •Eto <5 0 WUcex0z ) Lj 2 wpm. z U g W W z r to (f) 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the DOE Defendants are California residents. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants herein was at all times relevant hereto the agent, employee, or representative of the remaining Defendants, and was acting within the course and scope of such relationship with the knowledge and consent of all other Defendants and mutual ratification of all conduct as alleged in this Complaint. 5. Reference on behalf of Defendants shall include the singular and plural and shall include all Defendants in this action, whether named or designated as DOE. Reference to any single Defendant shall include all DOE Defendants to which the facts later are shown to apply. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is a civil action wherein the amount in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 7. The acts that caused Plaintiff's damages as alleged herein primarily occurred in the County of Los Angeles, within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. In or about November 2017, Plaintiff began working as a registered nurse at Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital ("Auburn Faith"), a hospital owned and operated by Defendant Sutter. 9. Plaintiff worked night shifts in Auburn Faith's Emergency Department and experienced many operational problems there. Plaintiff not only observed safety issues, but also many issues with working conditions, including chronic understaffing, failure by Defendant Sutter to provide paid meal and rest breaks as mandated by law, and failure by Defendant Sutter to pay proper overtime compensation. - 2 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL t_:A -et co ~ N WO O 2 ct 650) g af_z 00z wUccir 'Z'L-1 2 02J 22 LL, io o= (c U 0 L72 ,, 1 L7 Lu Ui 0 -J 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 10. Plaintiff made multiple complaints about conditions at Auburn Faith, always directing her grievances to Defendant Sutter through proper channels. 11. On the evening of May 24, 2019, a patient at Auburn Faith was being treated in the Emergency Department for possible deep vein thrombosis. An emergency medicine physician at Auburn Faith ordered an intravenous dose of Heparin for this patient, as well as a Heparin drip. Defendant Sutter mandates special procedures for the administration of Heparin, including a requirement that administration of Heparin is to be independently verified and documented by two licensed nurses. 12. Plaintiff administered Heparin to the Emergency Department patient per the emergency medicine physician's orders and followed Defendant Sutter's procedures for Heparin administration, properly documenting administration of the drug with another licensed nurse. Due to a good faith error in judgment, however, Plaintiff administered an incorrect dose of Heparin to the patient. 13. When Plaintiff discovered that she had given the Emergency Department patient an incorrect dosage of Heparin, she promptly notified the emergency medicine physician, the appropriate charge nurse, and a pharmacist. Plaintiff then self-reported the error online per Defendant Sutter's procedures. 14. Following the incident involving Plaintiffs administration of an incorrect dosage of Heparin, Defendant Sutter terminated Plaintiff, claiming that in addition to administering an incorrect dosage of Heparin, Plaintiff had failed to follow Defendant Sutter's procedure requiring Heparin administration to be independently verified and documented by two licensed nurses. Plaintiffs last day of work was June 14, 2019. 15. Defendant Sutter clearly used the Heparin dosage incident as a pretext for wrongfully terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for her having lodged complaints about Defendant Sutter's ongoing issues with safety and working conditions. This is clear from the fact that though other Sutter employees were partially responsible for the Heparin dosage incident, none of them were written up or disciplined as a result of the incident. - 3 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 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 16. Upon terminating Plaintiff, Defendant Sutter denied unemployment benefits to her, claiming that she had been terminated for misconduct. Plaintiff appealed Defendant Sutter's decision regarding her unemployment benefits, and an administrative law judge found in her favor, reversing Defendant Sutter's decision on grounds that Plaintiff had not committed misconduct. 17. Plaintiff was unemployed for a period of approximately six months following her termination by Defendant Sutter due in part to the fact that Defendant Sutter actively tried to prevent her from gaining new employment by speaking negatively about her to other potential employers who would contact Defendant Sutter in connection with their evaluation of Plaintiff as a potential employee. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION (Against All Defendants) [California Labor Code Section 1102.5] 18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations as though fully set forth herein. 19. Defendant Sutter retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff due to her lawful complaints regarding safety issues and working conditions at Auburn Faith resulting from illegal practices by Defendant Sutter. 20. As a consequence of Defendants' retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general and special damages in the form lost wages and employment benefits, as well as severe physical and emotional distress. The exact amount of Plaintiffs damages is presently unknown. 21. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof. - 4 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 cf) Nui0 C • 0 217)0, <‹ Ur o0-2 wUccx L 23 22 m u g () (f) 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against All Defendants) 22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations as though fully set forth herein. 23. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code, Section 12940(h), and California Labor Code, Section 1102.5 clearly set forth the well-established policy of the State of California prohibiting termination for complaining, protesting, and refusing to participate in a violation of law. This substantial and fundamental public policy was in effect at the time of Plaintiff's termination. 24. Plaintiff's termination by Defendants in retaliation for her having complained regarding wrongful and illegal conduct by Defendant Sutter constitutes wrongful termination in violation of this public policy, reflected in the California Labor Code and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, both of which permit employees to protest violations of law by their employers without fear of termination. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful termination of Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in the form of lost wages and other employment benefits and emotional distress. The exact amount of Plaintiff's damages is presently unknown. 26. Defendants and each of them acted for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer financial loss and severe emotional and physical distress. Defendants' wrongful acts were done willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff from an improper and evil motive that amounted to malice, and in conscious, reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof. - 5 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 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 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; 2. For special damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; 3. For punitive and exemplary damages; 4. For costs of suit; 5. For reasonable attorney's fees as provided by statute; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: June 9, 2021 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC By: MARCUS PETOYAN Attorneys for Plaintiff COURTNEY WILSON DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. DATED: June 9, 2021 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC By: MARCUS PETOYAN Attorneys for Plaintiff COURTNEY WILSON - 6 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL