Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Wickline v. State

Court of Appeal of California, 2nd District, Division 5
239 Cal.Rptr. 810 (1986)


Wickline (plaintiff) suffered from a clot in her right leg due to her arteriosclerosis condition. Dr. Daniels informed Wickline that surgery was necessary and she was eligible for Medi-Cal, California’s financial medical assistance program. Daniels submitted a request for financial assistance to Medi-Cal which approved surgery and ten days hospitalization. Dr. Polonsky performed the operation to remove the clot, but complications arose, which required a second operation. Wickline’s authorized hospitalization ended on January 17, but Polonsky requested an additional eight days from Medi-Cal on January 16. Polonsky had concerns about Wickline developing a possible infection and wanted to monitor her in case her condition deteriorated. The on-site Medi-Cal nurse consultant did not believe that an additional eight days was necessary and she telephoned Dr. Glassman, the Medi-Cal physician consultant, to review the request. Glassman rejected the request for an additional eight days, but approved an additional four days of hospitalization beyond the original discharge date of January 17. Polonsky and Daniels did not question Glassman’s decision. Wickline was discharged in stable condition, but began experiencing pain in her right leg within a few days. Nine days later, Wickline’s leg required amputation. Wickline brought suit against the State of California (defendant), which managed the Medi-Cal program, for damages resulting from the loss of her leg. At trial, Polonsky testified that had Wickline remained in the hospital, he would have been able to save her leg. The state argued that the decision to discharge Wickline was made by her physicians and that Medi-Cal played no part in the discharge decision. The jury found for Wickline and the State appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rowen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial