Howell v. State Dep't of State Hosps.

1

ASHLEY HOWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, Defendant and Respondent.

Nos. A168526, A169105

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

November 7, 2024

Certified for Publication 12/5/24

Napa County Superior Court No. 20CV000794 Hon. Scott R.L. Young Trial Judge

Attorneys for Appellant:

Law Offices of Corren & Corren Adam Blair Corren Spencer D Sinclair

Attorneys for Respondent:

Rob Bonta Attorney General of California

Chris A. Knudsen Senior Assistant Attorney General

Fiel D. Tigno Deputy Attorney General

Gregory A. Call Deputy Attorney General

Christopher D. Beatty Deputy Attorney General

DESAUTELS, J.

"After three years of litigation and a two-week trial," a jury found plaintiff Ashley Howell had been discriminated against by her former employer, Department of State Hospitals (DSH). The jury awarded Howell $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. After trial, the court denied Howell's motion for a limited new trial regarding non-economic damages and granted DSH's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. As the prevailing party, Howell sought $1.75 million in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest; the court awarded $135,102 "in fees and costs" but did not rule on her uncontested request for prejudgment interest. Accordingly, we remand for the court to address Howell's request for prejudgment interest. In all other aspects, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Howell worked for DSH as a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician between January 2, 2020 and January 24, 2020.^[1]

DSH houses patients who are involuntarily committed to medical treatment, including criminal defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial, patients found not guilty by reason of insanity, and offenders with mental disorders, among others. Pre-licensed psychiatric technicians provide nursing and psychiatric care to DSH's disabled patients and have physical job duties like crisis intervention and restraining patients who pose a risk to themselves or others.

"As part of the hiring process," Howell underwent a pre-employment health screening, which required Howell to disclose, among other things, "[a]ny disorders of the nervous system," any "[l]ung or respiratory trouble," and any "[s]hortness of breath." Although Howell disclosed having asthma, she responded "no" to all other screening questions.

However, Howell had been previously diagnosed with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder following a 2017 sexual assault by a patient inmate at a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) hospital in Stockton, where Howell then worked as a certified nursing assistant. After the assault, Howell experienced panic attacks with trouble breathing and shortness of breath and went on medical leave.^[2]

On January 2, when Howell commenced working with DSH, she was still on medical leave with CDCR. In fact, on January 3, Howell submitted a doctor's note to CDCR stating that she could not return to work before February 23, and that she was unable to work with prison inmates.

DSH was not aware of Howell's leave status until on or about January 22, when CDCR informed DSH of the same as part of their regular communication exchange concerning employment transfers. In a subsequent records search, DSH discovered that Howell had sustained an injury to her "nervous system," the description of which was inconsistent with Howell's representations on her DSH health questionnaire. On January 24, DSH therefore terminated Howell's employment.^[3]

Howell filed this lawsuit against DSH, asserting claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940, et seq.; FEHA) for mental disability discrimination and physical disability discrimination, as well as claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and failure to prevent discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell's claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination on the first day of trial. Howell's remaining claims for mental and physical disability discrimination were tried to a jury, which found in Howell's favor on her mental disability discrimination claim only, awarding $28,941 in lost earnings, $7,810.25 in lost health insurance, and nothing for pain and suffering.

The parties filed competing posttrial motions. Howell moved for a limited new trial on noneconomic damages only or, alternatively, a conditional award of $70,000, which the court denied, and DSH moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court granted, striking the award for lost health insurance because Howell had failed to present evidence of out-of-pocket expenses caused by the loss.^[4] As the prevailing party, Howell also sought over $1.75 million in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The court awarded $135,102.

Howell appeals from judgment and the posttrial orders.

DISCUSSION

Howell asserts the trial court erred by (1) denying Howell's new trial motion on noneconomic damages, (2) striking the award of lost health insurance benefits, and (3) granting only part of Howell's motion for attorney fees, costs, and interest.

I. Howell's Motion for New Trial

Howell asserts that the trial court's denial of her new trial motion was an abuse of discretion because the noneconomic damage award of zero ($0) is inadequate as a matter of law and not supported by the evidence.

As "a general matter, orders granting a new trial are examined for abuse of discretion." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859, citing cases.) However, because an order denying a new trial is not independently appealable, it is reviewed as part of the underlying judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2); Walker v. Los Angeles County Metro. Tansp. Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18.)^[5] Thus, we "review 'the entire record, including the evidence, so as to make an independent determination whether the error was prejudicial.'" (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 417, fn. 10, citing authority.)

Where a party claims inadequate damages or insufficient evidence, a "new trial shall not be granted . . ., unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision."^[6] (§ 657, italics added.) "A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and the court's exercise of discretion is accorded great deference on appeal." (Fassberg Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 720, 752, citing City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 871-872.) "Accordingly, we can reverse the denial of a new trial motion based on insufficiency of the evidence or [inadequate] damages only if there is no substantial conflict in the evidence and the evidence compels the conclusion that the motion should have been granted." (Fassberg, at p. 152.)

A. Relevant Facts

At trial, Howell sought noneconomic damages for approximately 16 months from January 24, 2020, through May 17, 2021, when Howell obtained new employment. Five witnesses testified regarding Howell's alleged noneconomic damages: Howell, Howell's fiance, Howell's treating psychologist Dr. Sherri Holt, Howell's qualified medical evaluator Dr. Corey Hahn, and DSH's expert psychologist Dr. Paul Berg.^[7] Howell described the termination as devastating and that it "felt like [she] was being punished because [she] was sexually assaulted." Howell experienced depression after the termination, which worried her fiance. Howell's fiance testified that she went back into "a state of depression. She was very upset and she was afraid that the [sexual assault] incident would never be put behind her." Howell became "closed off again," which impacted their relationship, and it took Howell "about a year and a half" to find new employment.

From 2018 through 2021, Howell sought therapy from Sunrise Counseling Group and Dr. Holt. According to Dr. Holt, the termination was detrimental to Howell's mental health and caused loss of confidence and selfesteem. Dr. Holt testified that Howell "seemed to regress" after termination, and "her symptoms" from the 2017 assault "came back."

Dr. Hahn evaluated Howell four times between 2017 and 2020, including a 2017 qualified medical evaluation in connection with Howell's workers' compensation claim stemming from the assault. In connection with a February 2020 examination following Howell's termination, Dr. Hahn reported that Howell "presented essentially the best [he] had ever seen her." Howell "appeared well rested, brighter in her affect and presentation, engaged and, you know, in a good mood." Dr. Hahn opined that Howell had achieved "permanent and stationary status," meaning "[m]aximum medical improvement," and that "there is no further treatment likely to result in any substantial further improvement."

Called to testify by DSH, Dr. Berg concluded that Howell's sexual assault was a "major" source of Howell's depression. While Howell's termination "bothered her," and she exhibited symptoms of depression following her termination, Dr. Berg explained that "a lot of things bother a lot of people. Being bothered is not the same as having a mental disorder."

In closing argument, Howell's counsel suggested the jury award between $50,000 and $150,000 for "mental suffering and emotional distress" and between $150,000 and $450,000 for "loss of...