Updated February 20, 2026
California Nurses Win Historic $30M Settlement in Safety Retaliation Case
California healthcare laws faced a defining test when a group of nurses stood up for patient safety and won. In a landmark decision, a jury awarded $30 million to nurses who reported dangerous conditions at their hospital, only to face severe retaliation from management. The case represents one of the largest verdicts ever granted to healthcare whistleblowers in the state's history.
After documenting numerous safety violations including unsterilized equipment and ignored suicide prevention protocols, these healthcare professionals experienced termination and a hostile work environment instead of appropriate corrective action. Despite facing intimidation, the nurses pursued justice through legal channels, ultimately vindicating their right to advocate for patient safety without fear of reprisal.
The verdict sends a powerful message about the strength of whistleblower protections under California labor laws. Significantly, this case highlights how healthcare institutions must address safety concerns raised by frontline workers rather than attempting to silence them. The jury's decision not only compensates the affected nurses but also establishes an important precedent for healthcare workers throughout California who witness unsafe practices.
Jury Awards $30M to Nurses in Landmark Retaliation Case
In one of California's most significant healthcare whistleblower cases, a jury delivered justice for a dedicated nurse who spoke up about patient safety concerns. On December 12, 2023, after an 11-day trial, jurors awarded approximately $41.5 million to Maria Gatchalian, a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurse who was fired from Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Woodland Hills after reporting unsafe conditions.
Verdict details and timeline of the case
The jury deliberated for just a few hours before reaching their decisive verdict against Kaiser Permanente. Ms. Gatchalian had served the hospital faithfully for 30 years, including 13 years as the overseeing charge nurse in the NICU. Her termination came after she raised concerns that the hospital was violating California healthcare laws through dangerous understaffing practices in the critical NICU department.
During the proceedings, the nurse presented compelling evidence that while other Kaiser employees caught in similar safety policy violations received merely counseling or written warnings, she faced the harshest consequence – termination. This differential treatment proved crucial in demonstrating the retaliatory nature of her dismissal under California Labor Code section 1102.5, which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report violations of law.
Following the verdict, Kaiser Permanente expressed disappointment and filed an appeal. Murtaza Sanwari, the senior vice president at the Woodland Hills facility, defended the termination, claiming her actions were "egregious and in violation of our infection control policies and standards". Nevertheless, the jury had clearly determined otherwise.
Subsequently, in March 2024, a judge reduced the punitive damages portion of the award from $30 million to $10 million, prompting both sides to appeal this adjustment. As a result, the final compensation amount remains pending resolution.
Breakdown of economic and compensatory damages
The jury's substantial award reflected both the economic harm and emotional distress suffered by the nurse. For economic damages, they granted $1.3 million for past lost wages and $1.2 million for future lost wages, recognizing the severe career disruption caused by her wrongful termination.
Furthermore, the jury acknowledged the profound emotional impact of the retaliation by awarding $1.5 million for past mental suffering and $7.5 million for future mental suffering. The largest portion of the verdict—$30 million—came as punitive damages, designed to penalize Kaiser Permanente for what the jury determined was malicious conduct.
The total breakdown of the original jury award consisted of:
- $2.5 million in combined past and future lost earnings
- $9 million in past and future emotional distress
- $30 million in punitive damages
This case exemplifies how California's whistleblower protection laws function to safeguard healthcare workers who advocate for patient safety. Moreover, the substantial financial penalty demonstrates the seriousness with which juries view retaliation against healthcare professionals who fulfill their ethical obligation to report unsafe conditions.
Nurses Report Unsafe Conditions at California Hospital
The alarming conditions that prompted nurses to speak out reveal serious lapses in patient safety protocols across California hospitals. Their documented concerns expose how healthcare facilities failed to maintain basic standards required under California healthcare laws, thereby endangering both patients and staff.
Unsterilized equipment and faulty machines
Hospital inspections uncovered disturbing evidence of improper sterilization practices. At UC San Diego's Hillcrest campus, state officials found surgical instruments with brown staining and post-operative instruments with red stains. Sterilizing machines reportedly contained large amounts of dark rust and exteriors covered with dirt. These violations were so severe that the California Department of Public Health declared "Immediate Jeopardy" at the facility—a designation assigned only when a hospital's errors have caused or are likely to cause serious injury or death.
Similarly, at Valley Medical Center, physicians and technologists reported relying on severely outdated equipment. Many machines were more than 23 years old, far exceeding their typical 10-15 year lifespan. The hospital operated with only three CT scanners, one permanently inoperable and another routinely breaking down. Consequently, when equipment failed, patients faced no alternative but to reschedule appointments, creating dangerous delays in diagnosis and treatment.
Ignored suicide prevention measures
At St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach, a former chief nursing executive repeatedly advocated for suicide prevention barriers after two deaths occurred at a tall structure on campus. The first suicide in 2013 resulted in a $50,000 fine from the California Department of Public Health for failing to properly assess the patient and implement prevention measures. Yet even after a second death in 2019, hospital leadership reportedly dismissed requests for safety improvements.
Nancy Valla, the former nursing executive, stated: "I was the only one that kept saying, 'OK, what are we going to do?… We've got this problem. We're in a vulnerable community". Initially, she even offered to pay for the barrier herself. Hospital administration claimed a barrier "would still not guarantee safety", although research consistently demonstrates such barriers effectively prevent impulsive suicide attempts by creating crucial intervention opportunities.
Leadership's refusal to act on safety concerns
Throughout California facilities, nurses encountered institutional resistance when reporting hazards. According to safety experts, creating a "psychologically safe environment" where staff can report concerns without fear is essential for patient safety. However, nurses frequently experienced the opposite response:
- At St. Mary, Valla's safety recommendations were "dismissed and disregarded," with one executive reportedly laughing at her concerns
- Hospital leadership allegedly compared a suicide victim to "a dog that had been hit by a car" rather than addressing systemic failures
- Medical staff ultimately issued a vote of no confidence in the CEO, highlighting a pattern of disregarding safety input
This problematic leadership approach extends beyond individual hospitals. A survey of over 3,800 California nurses revealed dangerous workplace conditions had become normalized, with 88% reporting having to reuse single-use disposable respirators with COVID-19 patients. Additionally, nearly all respondents in another survey (99%) reported experiencing workplace abuse or assault, with over 70% reporting physical assaults.
The unsafe conditions documented across multiple California facilities highlight systemic failures that ultimately led whistleblowing nurses to seek protection through California healthcare laws rather than through institutional channels that repeatedly failed them.
Hospital Retaliates Against Whistleblowers
After reporting critical safety violations, nurses who sought to protect patients under California healthcare laws found themselves targets of systematic retaliation. Rather than addressing the documented hazards, hospital management often responded with punitive measures designed to silence these healthcare professionals.
Termination and hostile work environment
Nurses who persisted in advocating for patient safety typically faced escalating hostility from hospital leadership, ultimately resulting in termination from their positions. This pattern of retaliation manifested through various forms of workplace intimidation. In several documented cases, supervisors openly expressed anger about compliance reports, vowing to identify and punish whistleblowers.
The hostile environment often included:
- Confrontational meetings featuring personal attacks and questioning of nurses' mental health
- Isolation from colleagues and mysterious notes criticizing their attitude
- Obstruction when attempting to transfer to other departments
Throughout California facilities, employers utilized multiple tactics to punish whistleblowers, such as demotions, denial of promotions, benefit withholding, and explicit intimidation. In one case, a supervisor even instructed a scheduling employee to delete WhatsApp messages containing nurses' safety concerns.
Pattern of silencing internal complaints
Studies reveal a disturbing truth—in approximately 40% of cases where inappropriate healthcare practices were reported, no action whatsoever was taken. This pervasive culture of silence stems from what experts identify as collusion among "silent partners"—healthcare professionals, hospitals, and insurance companies working together to maintain a code of silence.
Upon closer examination, senior executives at acute care settings frequently admitted their priority was keeping reported safety events "as quiet as possible" both within and beyond the organization. Correspondingly, empirical evidence indicates that silence has become the norm in healthcare settings, with voicing concerns typically met with negative consequences.
Healthcare professionals face tremendous pressure to remain silent about problematic conditions. The accumulated research demonstrates that toxic leadership fosters environments where nurses must eventually seek external help with workplace problems because internal channels prove ineffective.
How retaliation was proven in court
In recent California cases, juries have increasingly recognized patterns of retaliation against healthcare whistleblowers. Evidence of differential treatment proved crucial in demonstrating the retaliatory nature of terminations—as in cases where other employees with similar policy violations received merely counseling or written warnings, yet whistleblowers faced dismissal.
Timing played a critical role in establishing retaliation claims. Courts found significant that terminations occurred suspiciously close to when nurses reported safety violations. Furthermore, investigators identified inconsistencies in employer explanations for adverse actions.
Legal protections for whistleblowers have provided essential frameworks for these cases. California Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5 specifically prohibits health facilities from retaliating against employees who report quality of care concerns. Given this protection, courts have emphasized that internal reporting policies must ensure good-faith complaints receive proper attention through prompt and impartial investigations.
As a result of these legal precedents, California healthcare workers now have stronger standing to fulfill their ethical obligation to report unsafe conditions without fear of career-ending reprisals.
Legal Team Cites California Whistleblower Protections
Whistleblower protections served as the legal cornerstone for nurses fighting back against retaliation. The landmark verdict hinged upon several critical California laws designed to shield healthcare workers who report unsafe conditions from employer backlash.
Application of Labor Code §1278.5
California Health and Safety Code §1278.5 explicitly prohibits health facilities from retaliating against employees who report quality of care issues. The statute creates powerful legal presumptions that benefit whistleblowers:
- A rebuttable presumption of retaliation exists if adverse action occurs within 120 days of filing a complaint
- Protected activities include reporting concerns to facility management, accrediting agencies, or government entities
- Violations can result in civil penalties up to $25,000 per incident
The code's opening declaration states that "it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions". This legislative intent proved vital in establishing the legal foundation for the nurses' claims.
Role of legal counsel in building the case
Legal teams strategically leveraged these statutory protections by demonstrating clear connections between safety advocacy and subsequent terminations. In the Dignity Health case, attorneys David M. deRubertis and Brennan Hershey presented "extensive evidence showing how Dignity Health executives retaliated against Valla after she advocated for patient safety".
Attorneys emphasized that whistleblower protections in California exist precisely so "workers do not have to choose between protecting the public and protecting their livelihood". Legal counsel meticulously documented how safety concerns raised by nurses about unsterilized equipment and suicide prevention were followed by hostile workplace conditions and ultimately termination.
Jury's message to healthcare institutions
The unanimous verdict delivered unmistakable consequences for violating whistleblower protections. As lead attorney Johnny Rundell stated: "This verdict sends a clear message that healthcare institutions cannot silence employees who speak up for patient safety".
Beyond compensating individual nurses, the jury's decision established important precedents:
- Financial penalties proportional to the severity of retaliation ($27.5 million in one case)
- Recognition that emotional harm from retaliation warrants substantial compensation
- Affirmation that healthcare workers' duty to report unsafe conditions outweighs institutional interests in avoiding scrutiny
Essentially, the verdict reinforces that California healthcare laws provide genuine protection for those who put patient safety above institutional reputation. Through this case, California juries demonstrated willingness to enforce these protections with significant financial penalties against even the largest healthcare systems.
Verdict Sparks National Conversation on Nurse Advocacy
The $30 million verdict against hospital administrators has sent ripple effects throughout the healthcare industry, sparking intense dialog about nurse advocacy and patient safety practices nationwide.
Reactions from nursing community and jurors
The emotional impact of the case resonated deeply with jurors. Following the verdict, several jurors hugged the nurse plaintiff, some in tears, expressing admiration for her courage in standing up against powerful institutions. Attorney Brennan Hershey emphasized the moral weight of the case: "This case was always about doing the right thing. Ms. Valla stood up for vulnerable patients and was met with hostility instead of support".
Potential impact on hospital policies
The landmark decision places unprecedented pressure on healthcare facilities to reform their internal reporting systems. Therefore, hospitals now face both legal and financial incentives to prioritize frontline staff concerns over institutional reputation. Indeed, the verdict fundamentally challenges healthcare institutions to reassess how they balance business interests against patient safety obligations. As attorney Johnny Rundell noted, the decision directly confronts the tension between profit motives and healthcare quality: "It might be able to tell this healthcare corporation that the quality of care and protection of those with the courage to speak out matter more than the business side of medicine".
Encouragement for other whistleblowers to come forward
Notably, legal experts predict this verdict will embolden other healthcare professionals to report unsafe conditions. "Nancy Valla's courage in the face of retaliation has paved the way for other healthcare workers to stand up for what's right without fear of losing their careers," stated co-counsel Johnny Rundell. Ultimately, the case demonstrates that California healthcare laws genuinely protect those who prioritize patient welfare over institutional pressure to remain silent.
Conclusion
This landmark $30 million verdict undoubtedly represents a watershed moment for healthcare workers throughout California. The courageous nurses who risked their careers to report dangerous conditions have finally received justice after facing severe retaliation. Their victory demonstrates the effectiveness of California's robust whistleblower protection laws when properly enforced. Rather than addressing legitimate safety concerns about unsterilized equipment and ignored suicide prevention protocols, hospital leadership chose intimidation and termination—a decision that ultimately cost them millions.
The jury's message resonates clearly: healthcare institutions cannot silence those who advocate for patient safety. Patient welfare must take precedence over institutional reputation or financial interests. Consequently, hospitals across the state will likely reassess their internal reporting systems and how management responds to safety concerns raised by frontline staff.
Healthcare workers now have a powerful precedent supporting their ethical obligation to report unsafe conditions. The substantial financial penalty serves as both compensation for those wrongfully terminated and a deterrent against future retaliation. Nevertheless, this case highlights the ongoing tension between healthcare as a business and healthcare as a public service dedicated to patient wellbeing.
The nurses' willingness to stand against powerful institutions despite facing career-ending consequences exemplifies the highest ideals of the nursing profession. Their perseverance through legal channels, though difficult and lengthy, finally vindicated their right to advocate without fear of reprisal. Healthcare whistleblowers throughout California can therefore draw encouragement from this verdict, knowing the law genuinely protects those who prioritize patient safety above all else.
References
[1] – https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/whistleblower-protection-laws-for-healthcare-workers
[2] – https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect-1278-5/
[3] – https://www.wral.com/story/dirty-surgical-equipment-at-uc-san-diego-hospital-sparked-serious-state-response/17613894/
[4] – https://sanjosespotlight.com/long-waits-broken-machines-the-state-of-san-jose-valley-medical-center-vmc-hospital-radiology-er-health-care-treatment/
[5] – https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-03/death-prevention-barrier
[6] – https://www.aol.com/news/former-official-says-long-beach-100022304.html
[7] – https://www.apsf.org/article/effective-leadership-and-patient-safety-culture/
[8] – https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/survey-california-nurses-show-employer-government-disregard
[9] – https://www.seiu1021.org/article/70-sfdph-nurses-report-physical-assault-job-storm-health-commission-meeting-warn-possible
[10] – https://www.johnhowleyesq.com/whistleblower-retaliation-cases/nurse-wins-275-million-in-whistleblower-retaliation-case
[11] – https://www.hallerkwan.com/blog/2024/8/15/standing-up-for-patient-safety-how-we-defended-a-nurse-against-workplace-retaliation
[12] – https://www.thefriedmannfirm.com/whistleblower-protection-act-in-nursing/
[13] – https://www.massnurses.org/2024/03/21/eight-nurses-from-st-vincent-hospital-filed-suit-today-in-worcester-superior-court-against-tenet-healthcare-for-wrongful-termination-after-blowing-the-whistle-on-unsafe-patient-care-conditions-that-j/
[14] – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12254678/
[15] – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10248453/
[16] – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255496/
[17] – https://hallbenefitslaw.com/court-allows-nurse-educators-whistleblower-retaliation-claim-to-move-forward-against-hospital/
[18] – https://www.nurse.com/blog/can-an-rn-prove-whistleblowing-is-what-caused-her-termination/
[19] – https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250702291460/en/David-M.-deRubertis-and-Hershey-Law-Secures-Landmark-%2427.5-Million-Jury-Verdict-Against-Dignity-Health-in-Whistleblower-Retaliation-Case
[20] – https://hersheylaw.com/hershey-law-wins-27-million-in-major-whistleblower-retaliation-case/
[21] – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/david-m-derubertis-hershey-law-130000155.html
[22] – https://nurse.org/news/nurse-whistleblower-wins-27m-verdict/
[23] – https://hospitalwatchdog.org/kaiser-nurse-maria-gatchalian-reported-unsafe-conditions-she-was-fired-but-the-jury-verdict-was-42-5-million/
