A recent court filing reveals a contentious legal battle between an individual and a medical facility over the enforcement of mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint, filed by Peter N. Yaya in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on February 24, 2022, against SC Medical, Inc., doing business as AFC Urgent Care of Valencia (AFC), has brought to light significant issues regarding disability rights and public health policies.
According to the case details, Peter N. Yaya entered AFC's facility in Valencia, California, on December 21, 2021, seeking medical treatment for his deviated septum—a condition he claims substantially limits his respiratory functions. Upon arrival, Yaya was asked by the receptionist if he had a face mask. When he explained that his disability prevented him from wearing one, he was instructed to fill out intake paperwork and wait outside. After some time, Yaya received a call from the receptionist informing him that wearing a face mask was mandatory for reentry into the facility. Ignoring this directive, Yaya reentered without a mask and requested to speak with the office manager.
The office manager, Alexandra Martinez, reiterated that company policy required all patients to wear face masks. Yaya argued that this policy violated Civil Code section 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act) and other state and federal laws. Despite his protests, Martinez stood firm on the policy. Frustrated and untreated, Yaya left after asking for his paperwork to be returned and personal information deleted.
Yaya's initial complaint included causes of action for violation of Civil Code section 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act), slander per se under Civil Code section 46(2), violation of the Patient’s Bill of Rights under California Code of Regulations title 22 section 72527(a)(4), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. AFC responded with a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity provided by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). This federal law grants immunity to certain entities from liability related to countermeasures against public health emergencies like COVID-19.
The trial court granted AFC's motion without prejudice initially but later granted it with prejudice after determining that AFC's actions fell under PREP Act immunity due to their enforcement of mask-wearing as part of their COVID-19 countermeasures. The court noted that even if exceptions existed within PREP Act immunity or appellant could state an exception to it, such claims would need to be addressed in federal court rather than state court.
Despite these setbacks, Yaya appealed the judgment entered in favor of AFC on May 8, 2023. He argued that AFC failed to recognize exemptions for individuals with disabilities as outlined by state guidelines during the pandemic. However, no binding authority suggested private entities like AFC were mandated to follow these guidelines strictly.
Representing himself pro se throughout much of this litigation process has been challenging for Yaya as procedural missteps—such as filing amendments without leave—have complicated proceedings further against seasoned defense attorneys Kenneth R. Pedroza and Alysia B. Carroll from Cole Pedroza along with Michael J Trotter & Michael Edward deCoster from Carroll Kelly Trotter & Franzen representing SC Medical Inc.
As this case progresses through appeals under Judge Stephen P Pfahler’s oversight (Case ID: B330912).