Arbuckle v. Cal. Bd. Chiropractic Examiners
In State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court (2009) 45 Cal.4th 963 (Arbuckle I), our Supreme Court held that plaintiff Carole Arbuckle could pursue her whistleblower suit[1] against defendant State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) and its former executive director, defendant Jeanine R. “Kim†Smith, despite adverse administrative findings by the State Personnel Board (SPB)’s executive officer and without first pursuing further administrative remedies. The Board and Smith (collectively the Board, except as indicated) now appeal from a judgment after a substantial jury verdict in favor of Arbuckle.
The Board’s principal contention is that Arbuckle was barred from prosecuting this civil suit by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a claim that unabashedly disregards the holding of Arbuckle I. The Board also purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of liability and damages, but these contentions are both forfeited and lack merit. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on Arbuckle v. Cal. Bd. Chiropractic Examiners