of~os county of los angelesfile.lacounty.gov/sdsinter/lac/1017667_020617-combined... ·...

oF~os COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESJ~a~'~ ,,.~:,~~ q~CF

~~~'`y'`'"N CLAIMS BOARD• 1.y

~1~r L

~ ,k~~+ l' W;L= ~ 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET• 1LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012-2713

` CApfORN~P .

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

John NaimoAuditor-Controller

Steve RoblesChief Executive Oftice

Roger H. G~anboOffice of the County Counsel

NOTICE OF MEETING

The County of Los Angeles Claims Board will hold a regular meeting onMonday, February 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in the Executive Conference Room,648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, California.

AGENDA

Call to Order.

2. Opportunity for members of the public to address the Claims Board onitems of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of theClaims Board.

3. Closed Session — Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9).

a. Maria Bermudez, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 578 447Yeris Avelar, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 626 477

These wrongful death lawsuits concern allegations of excessiveforce by Sheriffs Deputies while responding to a 911 call;settlement is recommended in the amount of $250,000.

See Sugpol~inq Documents

b. Non-Litigated Claim of Luis Kao and Julie Teoh

This claim seeks compensation from the Department of PublicWorks for real and personal property damages allegedly causedfrom a backflow of sewage due to a sewer mainline blockage;settlement is recommended in the amount of $32,894.08 (includespre-payment of $11,064.29).

See Supporting Document

HOA. l O 1507115.1

c. Justin S., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem,Margarita Ramirez v. Countv of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 483 559

This dangerous condition lawsuit arises from injuries plaintiffreceived from a fall while on the playground at Ruben SalazarPark; settlement is recommended in the amount of $40,000.


d. Elisa Yanez v. Countv of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 517 322

This lawsuit concerns allegations of personal injury by a garageentry gate at a Department of Mental Health Facility; settlement isrecommended in the amount of $1,500,000.

See Supporting Documents

e. Sandra Gabriel, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.United States District Court Case No. 2:15-CV-03118

This lawsuit alleges plaintiffs' civil rights were violated when theDepartment of Children and Family Services detained her fourminor children without a warrant; settlement is recommended inthe amount of $140,000.

See Supporting Documents

Constance Johnson v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 570 876

This lawsuit alleges that an employee of the Department ofChildren and Family Services was subjected to discrimination,harassment based on age and gender, and retaliation; settlementis recommended in the amount of $250,000.

g. Kimberly Nquven v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 589 086

This lawsuit alleges that an employee of the Department of PublicHealth was subjected to retaliation; settlement is recommended inthe amount of $175,000.

HOA.1015071 15.1

h. Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 561 292

This lawsuit concerns allegations of medical malpractice andprivacy breach while Plaintiff was a patient of the EmergencyDepartment at LAC+USC Medical Center; settlement isrecommended in the amount of $497,000.


4. Report of actions taken in Closed Session.

5. Approval of the minutes of the January 9, 2017, regular meeting of theClaims Board.


6. Items not on the posted agenda, to be referred to staff or placed on theagenda for action at a further meeting of the Board, or matters requiringimmediate action because of emergency situation or where the need totake immediate action came to the attention of the Board subsequent tothe posting of the agenda.

7. Adjournment.

HOA. l O l 5071 15.1

CASE SUMMARY

INFORMATION ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION

CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AMOUNT

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY

NATURE OF CASE

PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE

PAID COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.101394644.1

Maria Bermudez, et al. v. County of Los Angeles- and-Yeris Avelar, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

BC 578447 / BC 626477

Los Angeles Superior Court

4/14/2015

Sheriff s Department

$ 250,000

Dale K. GalipoLaw Offices of Dale K. Galipo

Jonathan McCavertyPrincipal Deputy County Counsel

These two consolidated lawsuits arose out of theNovember 2014 fatal shooting of Ricardo Avelar andEduardo Bermudez by Sheriff

s

Deputies following a911 call about a suspect brandishing a handgun.When Mr. Bermudez threatened the Deputies withwhat appeared to be a handgun, the Deputies firedat Mr. Bermudez resulting in his death. Mr. Avelar,who ignored Deputies' grders to move away, wasfatally struck by a ricocheting bullet.

Due to the risks and uncertainties of litigation, areasonable settlement at this time will avoid furtherlitigation costs. Therefore, a full and final settlementof the case in the amount of $250,000 isrecommended.

$ 318,355

$ 118,147

------ .. m ,~ ,.. ..~1 Case_Name~Yeris Avelar and Mann Bermudez v Cau~fiv of Las Angeles, et alf.__._-- —..—_____._____~ _ _._ ---_.. __... _ _.._

S~umn~~ry Cc~rrectiv~ ,~+~t +~n Phan

The intent of this form iS to assist departments in writing a corrective action plan summary for attachmentto the settlement dacumen~s developed for fihe Board pf Supervisors and/or the County of Loy AngelesGlaims Board_ The summary should be a speeifiic overview of the claims/lawsuits' dent4fied raa# causesand corrective .actions (status; time frame, and responsible party. This summary does not. replace theCorrective Action Plan farm. if there is a q~aestiao related #o confidentiality, please consult County Counsel.

Date of incidenU~vent: Nauember 16, 2014

6riefiy provide a description Yens Avelar and'. Maria. Bermudez v. County of l.os AngelesSuCnm~ry' G4rrective Action Pt~n 2016-044of the incldenUevent:

On Nauember 16, 2Q14, at approxirrt~tely 2:24 a,m., several uniformedLos Angeles County deputy sheriffs, assigned to East Leas AngelesStation, respaaded to an assauk# with a deadly weapon call. The caller,who was a security guard at a local bar, indicated an individual in an SUVload pain#ed a firearm at him. The informant prauided detailed informationregarding the suspect and suspecC vehici~, inciuc~i~g a license platenum ber. Four deputy s~erif~s, in two separate patrol vehicles, monitoredthe streets near tt~e susp~et vehicle's registered tiwner's address.

Vllithin nnfnutes, two depuCy sheriffs saw the- suspect ueh cle and began tofallow. Emergent radio traffic was initiated, requesting assistance as thedeputies. follaw~d the susp~cf vehicle. The $aspect vehicle quicklystopped along a curb. The passenger (m~kahing the description of thearmed' suspect) exited the vehicle and,staod near the rear bumper. Twt~additional assisting deputy sherii~s arriued an scene ko provideassistance. Suddenly the suspect vehicle pulled forward, approximate{y15 feet, and turned info a p~rkir~g spot of the apa~tmen# complex ac thelocation. Believing the suspect uehicle was giving (fight, the two assistingdeputy sheriffs followed, but eventually stopped. behind the suspect'suehicle in its parCcing spat.

The passenger ramained 15 feet tram the primary deputy sheriffs. The.pass~n~er ruched into his jacket, grat~bed a pistil, and moved his handin and out of his. jacket s~v~r~l times, partially exposing the grip and thetrigger guard of the pistol. ~'k~e deputy ~heri~fs atkempt~d ko detain thepassenger at gwnpoint and gave several commands to straw his handsand to drop the pistaf, in bath Spanish and English, Seeing and hearingwhat was ocGUrring wlth the passenger and realizing they were in apotential shooting backdrop, the assisting deputy sheriffs le#t their patroFvahicle and moved to join the two primaryF deputy sheriffs at their patrokcar. Additional commands were expressed in English and Spanish, bu#the passenger did not follow the t~rders. In an aggressive and tauntingmanner, the passenger shouted at the deputy sheriffs, "Do you know whoam?" and "Just shoat met"

~`he driver of the suspect vehicle exited and stood next to the vehicle(approximately 25 fi~et away from the passenger and 50 feet from theinitial deputy sheriffs}; but directly in tfte potential shooting backdropbehind the passenger. The deputy sheriffs gave the driver commands inEnglish and Spanish, and motioned with their hands and arms far thedriver to et out of the shookin~ backd, ra~a~, The driver fai(~d to cam p with4

Document version: 4,0 (:January 20'E3) Page 1 of 4

Caunry of Los AngelesSummary Corrective Action Plan

the deputy sheriffs' orders and remained in a potential line of fire behindthe passenger.

tSeconds later, the passenger slowly pulled the pistol completely out of his

~ f ~ack~t prompting the deputies to fear for their safety and the safety ofnth~rs, and adeputy-involved shooting occurred. A(I four deputy sheriffsFred a total of 18 rounds. The amount of rounds fired per deputy were as

~ ;follows: Pour, five, seven, and two. The passenger (intended target) wasr struck with 13 rounds. The driver (unintended party) was struck by oneround. Emergency medical services were summoned to. the location.The driver and passenger were bath pronounced dead at the scene.

No deputies were injured .during the incident. A fioxicology analysisrevealed the driver's btoad alcohol content (BAC) was .20 percent, andtha passenger's BAC was .25 percent. The passenger's handgun wasfound to b~ a replica air pistol' with no red tip2 on the barrel.

The co-plaintiffs in this settlement agreement are the surviving familymembers of both the driver and passenger.

Briefly describe the root c~useCs) of the claimilawsuit:

A Department root cause in this incident was the uninkentional shooting of the driver as four membersof the Los Angeles Gounty Sheriff s Department employed deadly farce against the passenger, who hadarmed himself with a pistol

Another Department root cause in this incident was the delay in providing medical aid to tha driver andpassenger after they had been shot by the deputy sheriffs.

A non-Department rgot cause in this incident was the passenger's failure to comply with the lawfulorders of Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs. When the passenger armed himself with a replica gun,the deputy sheriffs feared for their fives, prompting a daputy involved shooting.

Another non-Departmen# root cause in this incident was the driver's failure to comply with orders of thean-scene Las Angeles County deputy sheriffs to move out of the potential shooting. backdrop as deputysheriffs detained the armed passenger at gunpoint. The driver remained in the shaoking backdrop andwas unintentionally hit by a round when the passenger retrieved a replica pistol and the deputy sheriffsshat at him.

' Replica air pistols are made to took and have similar Functi~a to an actual manufactured firearm. In this incident,the passenger was aimed with a Cybergun, model ~`Tanfoglio Witness 19 t l," air pistol. The replica in this incidenthas a metal barrel, metal slide, a wood cal~red grip, and looks tike an actual Model 1911, semiautomatic firearm,.z California Penal Cade section 2Q150(a) states any person who alters, removes or obliterates any coloration ormarkings far an imitation or replica firearm is guitty of a misdemeanor.

Document version: 4.0 (January 2013) 'Page 2 a# 4

County of Los AngelesSummary Corrective Actian Plan

2. Briefly describe recommended corrective actions;(Include each corrective action, due date, responsiFaie party, and any disciplinary actions if appropriate}

This incident was thoroughly investigated by representatives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff'sDepartment`s Homicide Bureau to- determine the extent to which one or more members of the LosAngeles County Sheriff's Department engaged fn criminal misconduct.

The resutks of their invesfiigatian wera pr~sent~c~ to repr~s~ntatives from the Los Angeles County C3istrictAttorney's Office. C?n April 16, 2015, the Los Angeles County District Attacn~y's Qffice coneFuded thedeputy sheriffs acted lawfuf(y in self-defense and the def~ns~ ofi others when they used.. deadly farce.

This incident was investigated by represenfative~ of tha Los Angeles Counfy Sheriff`s 17~p~rtm~nt`sIn#~rna! Affeirs Bureau. The investigation was_ presented to an executive ~o~ce Ftevrew Cammitte~(~FRC} for evaluation. €he EFRC determined that the use of deadly farce and tactics wire ~nrithinDepartment policy. EFRC found one of the deputy sheriff s was in violation of other Department policies.Appropriate administrative action has been taken.

~acument version: 4.0 (January 20'f3} Page 3 of 4

County of Las AngelesSummary Corrective Action Plan

3. Are the cprrective acfians addressing [?epertment-wide system issues?

❑ Yes —The corrective actions address Department-wide system issues.

(~ No —The corrective actions are only applicable to the affected parties.

N8t11G: (Risk Management Coordinator)E

Scott E. Johnson, CaptainRisk Managamen# Bureau

Signs#ure:

Y'

!'~~r.

~ Date:

~~ ~~r~~

Name: (aepartment Headi

Karyn Mannis, ChiefProfessional Standards Oivisian 1

Signature: ...~..._-~,,...,..~,.~,,.~~m,.,,..~..,~~,~.~~n_~...,~...,~.~.m_.,...~,~ y,,,~~~w,.,.'

[]ate:,...~.,,.~.~.~..~.~...,.,.,~...~

F ~

f ~ ~ f'1~'~ C ̀\ ~, ~r ~''1- v'Z--f `~~ ~ chi -' ~ ~ ~ I ~ Ef I ~ i

Document version: 4.0 (January 2013) Page 4 of 4

CASE SUMMARY


CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT




NATURE OF CASE


PAID COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.101490583.1

Non-Litigated Claim of Luis Kao and Julie Teoh

f~D_1

November 9, 2015

Department of Public Works

$ 32,894.08 (includes pre-payment of $11,064.29)

N/A

Kevin J. EngelienDeputy County Counsel

This claim arises from a blocked sewer mainline thatcaused a sewage backf~ow into Claimants'residence and damaged their real and personalproperty.

Due to the risks and uncertainties of litigation, a fullsettlement of the claim is warranted.

$ 0

c. ~

CASE SUMMARY


CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT




NATURE OF CASE


PAI D COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.101425609.1

Justin S., a minor, by and through his Guardian AdLitem, Margarita Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles,et aL

BC 483559


April 26, 2012

Department of Parks and Recreation

Robin E. Paley

Richard K. KudoPrincipal Deputy County Counsel

This lawsuit arises from an accident that occurredon August 13, 2011, at Ruben Salazar Park whenthe minor plaintiff fell to the ground as an inflatableslide tipped over on its side while he was on top of itwaiting to slide down. Plaintiff claims to havesuffered injuries and damages as a result of theaccident. Due to the risks and uncertainties oflitigation, a full and final settlement of the case iswarranted.

$ 90, 852

$ 10, 506

CASE SUMMARY


CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT




NATURE OF CASE


PAID COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.101062492.1

Elisa Yanez v. County of Los Angeles

BC 517322


August 7, 2013

Department of Mental Health

$ 1,500,000

Marvin S. Cherin, Esq.

Richard K. KudoPrincipal Deputy County Counsel

On October 19, 2011, Elisa Yanez was injured whenshe was caught within the pedestrian gate portion ofthe garage gate at the Edelman Mental HealthCenter building. The garage gate openedspontaneously and without warning as Ms. Yanezstepped through the pedestrian portion of the gate,while exiting the building. She received soft tissueinjuries to her cervical and lumbar spine whichnecessitated surgical intervention. She continues tohave residual symptoms that will require future care.She alleges that the gate existed as a dangerouscondition. The County disputes that it had notice ofa dangerous condition and the cost of her futurecare.

Due to the risks and uncertainties of a trial, a full andfinal settlement of this case is recommended at thistime.

$ 124,929

$ 46, 970

Case Name: 12-t~96062 Elisa Yanez v. County of Los Angelesi

~urt~re~~ey Corrective Action Plan

,~,~ oe cos qHUOJ? r C~`~N

f ~~ }~} . _ i ~

~- -._CgitFORN~P

The intent of this farm is to assist departments in writing a corrective action plan summary for attachmentto the settlement documents developed for the Board of Supervisors and/or the County of Los AngelesClaims Board. The summary should be a specific overview of the claims/lawsuits' identified raot causesand corrective actions (status, time frame, and responsible party}. This summary does not replace theCorrective Action Plan farm. If there is a question related to confidentialikv, please consultCounty Counsel.

Date of incident/event: 1 011 9/201 1

Briefly provide a description plaintiff claimed she was injured when she exited a DMH facility. Sheof the incident/event: alleged that as she walked through a pedestrian door of the facility's

garage gate, the gate unexpectedly went up. She further alleged thatshe was trapped by the pedestrian door, causing her to hang from thegate far approximately 5-10 minutes before help arrived. Plaintiff claimedthat as a result of this incident, she suffered various injuries to her spine,necessitatin three 3 invasive s final sur sties.

Briefly describe the root causes) of the claimllawsuit:

A. DMH management allowed non-County entities to use the County facility after business hourswithout an agreement that addressad Ifabilitylindemnification.

B. After hours, the facility's front doors are lacked, which required individuals to exit the facilityusing the garage gate pedestrian door.

C. The garage gate was poorly configured with the pedestrian door constructed as part of thevehicular gate.

D. The garage gate openlclosure equipment may have malfunctioned.E. The contracted security guards} at the facility may have opened the garage gate without

properly scanning the area for individuals.F. The Department did not conduct routine inspections to ensure that the facility's garage gate

was working properly.

2. Briefly describe recommended corrective actions:(Include each corrective action, due date, responslbla party, and any disciplEnary actions if appropriate)

1. Staff was reminded in February 2015, and an updated memo wilt be sent out on Tuesday,September 6, 2016, stating that non-County entities who would like to use Departmentalfacilities must rent the space through the Real Estate Division of the Ghief Executive Office.This will ensure that liability is addressed, and door locking schedules are coordinated allowingindividuals to exit the facility through the front door and not the garage gate.

2. ISD reconfiguredlreplaced the faci{ity's garage gate in Apri12Al2 so that:• The pedestrian door is separate and operates independently from the vehicular gate• The vehicular gate is operated by an external keypad in the driveway, instead of a

security guard.• The pedestrian door is now locked at all times so that it can only be used by DMH staff.

3. DMH will hire a contractor by early 2017 to conduct routine inspections of the mechanica{infrastructures in all four (4) County-owned Qepartmental facilities on a regular basis,

3, Are the corrective actions addressing department-wide system issues?

Document version: Q.0 (January 2013} Page 1 of 2

County of Los AngelesSummary Corrective Action Plan

Yes –The corrective actions address department-wide system issues.

❑ No –The corrective actions are only applicable to the affected parties.

Some of the corrective actions address department-wide system issues.

NatTie: (Risk tviFinagement Coordinator)Margo Morales______~--- __._ — _^._ __- -- ----- D toS~ ure:

~ __wName: (~aParf: m~fHead)Robin Kay, ~D.

Sign ture:Date:_ _ -- ---

4 —)'~ t(

e — — . ~:_. .. ,Chief Executn±e Office~Risk Management Inspector Qeneral~USE't'3NLY ; .

Are the corrective:actionspapplicabie~to ether departments-within tfie County?

' Yes, the~carrective actions potentially have County" -wide, applicabiPity.

.0 No, the cQrrective..actions are'applicable onlyto this department:

e: {Risk Management Inspector Gsnerai)

i!~~5~~~ ~~ _._..._--- ---., _..__--...._----tore: ~_ Date:

r ~ ~.

~—=-~__.._ ___ ~ -- —__-- -- ----_.__ . .2' O —. ..


CASE SUMMARY


CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT




NATURE OF CASE


PAID COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.101178662.1

Sandra Gabriel, et al. v. County of Los Angeles,et al.

2:15-CV-03118

United States District Court

April 27, 2015

Department of Children and Family Services

~ 140, 000

L. Wallace Pate, Esq.Pate and Bond

Jessie LeeDeputy County Counsel

Plaintiffs Sandra Gabriel and her four minor childrenfiled this action for unlawful seizure, violation offamilial privacy/association, violation of due process,Monell claim, and supervisory liability claim as aresult of a warrantless detention of the four minors.On April 25, 2013, Ms. Gabriel gave birth to M. G.and both tested positive for amphetamine. Socialworkers detained M. G. and his siblings without awarrant while M. G. was still in the hospital and hissiblings were under the care of maternalgrandparents.

$ 98, 000

$ 2, 520

Case Name: Sandra Gabriel, et al. vs. COLA, et al.

Summary Corrective Acton Plan

The intent of this form is to assist departments in writing a corrective action plan summary fot attachmentto the settlement documents developed far the Board of Supervisors andlor the County of Los AngelesClaims Beard. The summary should be a specific overview of the claims/lawsuits' identified root causesand corrective actions (status, time frame, and responsible party). This summary does not replace theCorrective Action Plan foRn. [f there is a question related to confidentiality, please consult County Counsel.

Date of incidentJevent: April 26, 2013

Briefly provide a description The pla+stiff alleged that her children were removed From her care withoutof the incidenUevent: consent, a warrant or exigent circumstances, under the pretense of false

re arts to court, includin fault tiro test results.

briefly describe the root causetsl of the claimllawsult:

Lack of clarity of what constitutes exigency.

2. Briefly describe recommended corrective actions(lndude each cgrreciive action, due date, responsible party, and any dlsdplinary actions If appropriate)

The Department had relevant policies and procedures in effect at the time of the incident and continuesto ensure #hat its protocols supper# the current state of the law sa as to assist its workforce to provideappropriate and legally-sufficient child welfare. services. Relevant training has been made moreaccessible to social work staff and e mechanism for tracking completion of such training has beenimplemented.

3. Are the corrective actions addressing department-wide system issues?

Document version: 4.0 (January 2013) Page 'i of 2

County of Los AngelesSummary Corrective Action Plan

~' The canective actions address department-wide system issuesThe corrective actions are only applicable to the affected parties.

(VBrtie: {Rlsk Management Coordinator)

Signature: l~afe:

~18fi1@: (Department

PHILIP L.

Signature: Doke:

Chief Executive Office Risk Management Inspector General U5E OfVLY.~

Are the corr+~ctive acUans applicable to Qther departments wifhfn iEie County?

D Yes, the corrective actions potentially have ,County-wide applicability.

No, the corrective actions are applicable~only to this department.

N @: (Risk Management Inspector Gflneral)

Date:

~ ~9~~~r~


CASE SUMMARY


CASE NAME

CASE NUMBER

COURT

DATE FILED

COUNTY DEPARTMENT




NATURE OF CASE


PAID COSTS, TO DATE

HOA.100900777.1

Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

BC 561292

Los Angeles County Superior Court

October 20, 2014

Department of Health Services

$ $497,000

Neville JohnsonJohnson &Johnson, LLP

Narbeh BagdasarianPrincipal Deputy County Counsel

On June 20, 2011, Ms. Doe, a 21-year-old female,

was brought to the Emergency Department at

LAC+USC Medical Center. She was treated by

various physicians and nurses.

While at the Emergency Department, a nurse, who

was an employee of a contractor with the County of

Los Angeles, took Ms. Doe's picture and sent it to

another nurse, who was a County employee. The

picture was later published on the Internet.

Ms. Doe sued the County of Los Angeles and the

contracting agency for violation of privacy.

$ 217,337

$ 13,255

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CLAIMS BOARD

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING

JANUARY 9, 2017

Call to Order.

This meeting of the County of Los Angeles Claims Board was called to order at

9:31 a.m. The meeting was held in the Executive Conference Room, 648 Kenneth Hahn

Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, California.

Claims Board Members present at the meeting were: Chair John Naimo, Steve Robles, and

Roger Granbo.

Other persons in attendance at the meeting were: Office of the County Counsel: Millicent

Rolon; Sheriffs Department: Buddy Goldman, Jason Skeen, and Kelley Fraser.

2. Opportunity for members of the public to address the Claims Board on items of

interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Claims Board.

No members of the public addressed the Claims Board.

3. Closed Session — Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation

(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9)

At 9:32 a.m., the Chairperson adjourned the meeting into Closed Session to discuss the

items listed as 4(a) through 4(b) below.

4. Report of actions taken in Closed Session.

At 9:41 a.m., the Claims Board reconvened in open session and reported the actions

taken in Closed Session as follows:

a. Dalia Silva v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 595 727

This wrongful death lawsuit alleges negligence and deliberate indifference

to medical needs of an inmate while in the custody of the Sheriff'sDepartment.

Action Taken:

The Claims Board recommended to the Board of Supervisors the

settlement of this matter in the amount of $250,000.

Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo

HOA.101507518.1

b. Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 561 292

This lawsuit concerns allegations of medical malpractice and privacy

breach while Plaintiff was a patient of the Emergency Department at

LAC+USC Medical Center.

Action Taken:

The Claims Board continued this item to the meeting of February 6, 2017.

Vote: Ayes: 3 -John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo

5. Approval of the minutes of the December 19, 2016, regular meeting of the Claims

Board.

Action Taken:

The Claims Board approved the minutes.

Vote: Ayes: 3 -John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo

6. Items not on the posted agenda, to be referred to staff or placed on the agenda for

action at a further meeting of the Board, or matters requiring immediate action

because of emergency situation or where the need to take immediate action came

to the attention of the Board subsequent to the posting of the agenda.

No such matters were discussed.

7. Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m.

'~ ~i=... =-~~-.- -

HOA.101507518.1 2