Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Closed Session Settlements topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Orange County board reports multiple proposed settlements, including $5 million Silva payout

Orange County Board · November 5, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Counsel reported out of closed session that the Orange County board approved several proposed settlements — including a proposed $5,000,000 payment in Silva v. County of Orange — and delegated limited settlement authority on several employee-related claims; all agreements remain subject to final approval by others.

Counsel reported to the Orange County board that, in closed session, the board unanimously approved several proposed settlements and delegated limited settlement authority on other matters. The largest reported item was a proposed $5,000,000 settlement in Silva et al. v. County of Orange, a personal-injury case in which the plaintiff alleged traumatic brain injury from an automobile accident involving a county truck on the 5 Freeway; liability was not disputed, Counsel said.

The report listed actions on multiple matters. Counsel said the board unanimously delegated limited settlement authority in CS 2 to county counsel and outside counsel to resolve various harassment and discrimination claims brought by current and former employees of the district attorney’s office. "With respect to CS 2, the board unanimously delegated to county counsel and outside counsel limited settlement authority to settle various cases of harassment and discrimination brought by current and former county employees of the district attorney's office," Counsel said.

The board also unanimously approved a proposed $75,000 settlement in Perez v. County of Orange, a complaint that alleged harassment and other misconduct by a deputy sheriff at a county facility, and a proposed $420,000 settlement in Wallace v. County of Orange, involving a retired sheriff special officer who alleged cumulative trauma to hearing, back, shoulders and knees and cardiovascular disease. "With respect to SES 5, the board unanimously approved a proposed $75,000 settlement in the matter of Perez versus County of Orange," Counsel said. "With respect to SES 7, the board unanimously approved a proposed $420,000 settlement in the matter of Wallace versus County of Orange." Counsel said each of those settlements "remains subject to the final approval of others." Copies of finalized settlement agreements will be available through the office of CEO risk management to anyone who inquires.

Counsel reported the board delegated limited settlement authority to CEO risk management on a case concerning an inmate who fell from an escalator in the men's jail while being escorted to housing. Counsel also reported delegation for a case involving industrial injuries suffered by a county employee in a warehouse accident. "With respect to SCS 4, the Board unanimously delegated to CEO risk management limited settlement authority to settle this case," Counsel said. "With respect to SES 6, the Board unanimously delegated to CEO risk management limited settlement authority to settle this case and involves industrial injuries sustained by a County employee in a warehouse accident."

A separate item involved a proposed $45,000 settlement in Nicholas Cristioni v. County of Orange arising from an automobile collision that Counsel said involved an on-duty deputy sheriff driving code 3 early in the morning without lights and sirens and colliding with a vehicle making an illegal left turn. "Finally with respect to SES 8, the board unanimously approved a proposed $45,000 settlement in the matter of Nicholas Cristioni versus County of Orange," Counsel said.

Counsel told the board that these approvals and delegations were unanimous at the time of reporting but emphasized that each settlement "remains subject to the final approval of others." Beyond those items, Counsel said the board took no other reportable action in closed session that day. The chairman then closed the meeting.

The report provides no details about the approving body's next steps or specific dates for final approvals; those details were described only as "subject to the final approval of others."