Souvannarath v. Hadden,
No. F035228 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2002)

A Laotian woman residing in the United States brought suit against several county health officials after they detained her for over ten months in a county jail in violation of the state's laws concerning detention of noncompliant tuberculosis (TB) patients.

The woman failed to appear for treatment after she was sent a notice, written in a language she did not understand (English), directing her to appear at the public health department for TB treatment. In response to her failure to appear, public health officials issued an Order of Quarantine and Isolation, had her arrested at gunpoint and transported to county jail. She was held in the county jail for ten months, treated like any other inmate, and released only after the county's Counsel Office became involved.

The woman sued the county and its health officials, asking the court to issue a writ of mandate compelling the officials to abide by the state laws concerning the detention of noncompliant TB patients. In reviewing the case, the court noted several egregious violations of state law by the county health officials. To begin with, the Act specifically forbade the detention of noncompliant TB patients in jail facilities. The Act required the Quarantine Order to contain an explanation of the circumstances of the case, the less restrictive alternatives that had been attempted or considered, and notice of the appeal rights of the patient – none of which were contained in the Order served upon the patient in this case. The Act required that the detaining party petition the court for a hearing within 72 hours if the patient requested release, that a patient be detained for not more than 5 days after such a request in the absence of a court order, and that a patient be detained for no more than 60 days without a court order under any circumstances. None of these provisions were followed.

The California Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision to grant the writ. In doing so, it rejected the county's argument that the petition for writ was moot since the county had, subsequent to this case, revised its forms to comply with the state law. The court noted that, despite the improved forms, the public health officials who offered testimony in this case still showed no understanding of what their legal duties are with respect to the detention of noncompliant TB patients. Thus, the writ was necessary to ensure the county's active compliance with state law.