A California man’s battle for justice after a severe car accident has taken a significant turn. On June 7, 2024, Isaiah Hinojosa filed an appeal in the Third Appellate District Court of California against the Department of Transportation and Butte County, challenging the denial of his petition to present a late claim for damages related to his accident.
The case revolves around a tragic incident on June 19, 2021, when Hinojosa, then 18 years old, was involved in a single-car accident near Chico. Driving at approximately 55 miles per hour on Durham Pentz Road, he lost control of his Ford Explorer, which rolled over. Ejected from the vehicle due to not wearing a seatbelt, Hinojosa suffered multiple fractures and a severe traumatic brain injury that left him in a coma for about a month. His mother, Tracy Geary, consulted an attorney in November 2022 upon realizing potential liability from Caltrans and Butte County for the dangerous condition of the road.
In January 2023, more than 18 months post-accident, Hinojosa applied to present a late claim against Caltrans and Butte County. Both entities denied his application citing jurisdictional limitations as it was filed beyond one year from the date of damages accrual. Subsequently, Hinojosa filed a petition in March 2023 seeking relief from these claims presentation requirements under section 946.6 of the Government Claims Act. He argued that his severe injuries rendered him mentally incapacitated and without a guardian or conservator during the statutory period for filing claims.
Supporting documents included medical evaluations describing Hinojosa's debilitating condition: severe traumatic brain injury with cognitive impairments necessitating round-the-clock care. His treating physician Dr. Victoria Ota affirmed that Hinojosa's mental incapacity was permanent with no expected recovery. Despite this evidence, Butte County opposed the petition arguing insufficient admissible proof of incapacity and absence of excusable neglect or mistake justifying delayed filing.
The trial court initially denied Hinojosa’s petition based on its interpretation that section 911.4’s tolling provision did not apply as he was an adult at the time of the accident—a decision now challenged by Hinojosa in his appeal. The appellate court found merit in Hinojosa’s argument that section 911.4 indeed applies to mentally incapacitated adults lacking guardians or conservators and thus reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Hinojosa seeks judicial relief allowing him to file his claim against Caltrans and Butte County despite missing statutory deadlines due to his incapacitation post-accident—a contention supported by detailed medical reports and declarations underscoring his inability to comprehend or act upon potential legal liabilities until much later.
Representing Isaiah Hinojosa is appellate counsel who also managed initial trial proceedings; however, no specific names are mentioned regarding defense attorneys representing Caltrans or Butte County within this document context.
Judge Duarte authored this reversal opinion with Presiding Judge Earl and Judge Krause concurring under Case ID C098490 (Super Ct No: 23CV00699).