California Supreme Court Upholds Unconditional Reinstatement of Department of Health Services Investigator
Court Denies Petition for Review of Appellate Decision
On February 6, 2008 we posted the story of how CSLEA had gone to the Third District Court of Appeal in order to vindicate Hulings' right to reinstatement without having to undergo a background investigation and psychological examination.
Unfortunately, the story did not end there. DHS, not content to follow the reasoned opinion of the appeals court, asked the high court to review the case. Their purported basis for review was to “secure uniformity of decision and to settle an important question of law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(b)(1).)
Lack of uniformity is typically alleged when there are contrary decisions among the State’s six appellate districts. Here, the best DHS could muster was to cite to two decisions in addition to Hulings decided by the same appellate court, the Sacramento-based Third Appellate District. CSLEA in its opposition brief pointed out that of the three cases, only Hulings addressed the interplay between two Government Code sections, 19140.5 and 1031.
While this was certainly an important question of law to Investigator Hulings, the department could point to nothing in the record to support its claim that the Court of Appeal’s decision was in essence causing havoc in the law enforcement community.
We, at CSLEA believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in bringing this case to a close. We are also glad that Investigator Hulings now has this matter fully and finally behind him. A copy of the en banc decision of the California Supreme Court denying review is attached at the link below.
Court Denies Petition for Review of Appellate Decision
Source: Larry Friedman, Sr. Legal Counsel
Date: 4/24/2008
On February 6, 2008 we posted the story of how CSLEA had gone to the Third District Court of Appeal in order to vindicate Hulings' right to reinstatement without having to undergo a background investigation and psychological examination.
Unfortunately, the story did not end there. DHS, not content to follow the reasoned opinion of the appeals court, asked the high court to review the case. Their purported basis for review was to “secure uniformity of decision and to settle an important question of law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(b)(1).)
Lack of uniformity is typically alleged when there are contrary decisions among the State’s six appellate districts. Here, the best DHS could muster was to cite to two decisions in addition to Hulings decided by the same appellate court, the Sacramento-based Third Appellate District. CSLEA in its opposition brief pointed out that of the three cases, only Hulings addressed the interplay between two Government Code sections, 19140.5 and 1031.
While this was certainly an important question of law to Investigator Hulings, the department could point to nothing in the record to support its claim that the Court of Appeal’s decision was in essence causing havoc in the law enforcement community.
We, at CSLEA believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision in bringing this case to a close. We are also glad that Investigator Hulings now has this matter fully and finally behind him. A copy of the en banc decision of the California Supreme Court denying review is attached at the link below.
Downloads:
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |