Creason v. State Department of Health Services
California Supreme Court
957 P.2d 1323 (1998)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
The California State Department of Health Services (the department) (defendant) implemented a newborn-screening program under which a newborn’s blood was tested for certain hereditary disorders. The department implemented the screening pursuant to the state’s Hereditary Disorders Act (the act), which authorized the department to establish a screening program to detect hereditary disorders. The act allowed the department to implement the policies and procedures it viewed as necessary to detect certain disorders to improve public health and contained no provisions concerning treatment. In October 1990, the blood of newborn Sierra Creason (plaintiff) was tested pursuant to the screening program. Although Sierra had been born with congenital hypothyroidism and had irregular hormone counts, her parents, Claudia and Matthew Creason (plaintiffs), were not informed because the procedures implemented by the department required parents to be notified only if the test results showed high levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone. Sierra’s tests had shown abnormally low counts. In April 1991, Sierra was diagnosed with congenital hypothyroidism. The Creasons filed an action in California state court against the department for failing to diagnose and report Sierra’s condition. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the department was immune from liability. The matter was appealed. The court of appeal reversed on the ground that the state had breached a mandatory duty imposed by the act. The matter was appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.