What Kind of Action Is This? A Fact-First Guidebook to the Roadmaps

Scope and warning#

This is a Guidebook, the first of the series' product levels (Glossary 147, "Product levels"; Guidebook 001.1). It is not a Roadmap (which carries the law), not a Worksheet (which collects facts), not a Toolkit or Pleading model (which shows document anatomy), not a Defense playbook (which states the opposing arguments), not a reference library, and not the Navigator (Roadmap 150), which carries a longer fact-first index organized by family. It is deliberately short on law and long on routing. Where it states a legal proposition, the proposition is carried, with its authority, by the Roadmap it cites; the guidebook adds nothing of its own to the register.

The gateways use generic hypotheticals. None describes any real person's case. Corporate names and bankruptcy references below illustrate why precise legal-entity identification matters. No debtor status, docket date, plan release, opt-out, injunction, or bankruptcy notice is authenticated by this routing guide; those require the operative, filed source documents and a claim-specific assessment.

How to use the gateways#

Read the gateway that most resembles what happened. Then read the ones adjacent to it, because the facts that fit one gateway usually fit two or three. For each gateway, the structure is the same:

• What this might be — the families of law, named carefully with "may" and "potentially."
• What must be identified first — the actor, the entity, the dates, the records.
• Who can use the processes involved — in the vocabulary the project uses for this purpose: employee, former employee, applicant, licensed clinician, patient, incarcerated patient, former detainee or prisoner, estate representative, wrongful-death heir, whistleblower, witness, or a person with information but no private claim.
• Forums potentially involved — by reference to the matrix families.
• Roadmaps to read.
• What this gateway does not tell you.

The project has recovered working bodies across the 150 base-number positions and 19 supplements; their existence does not mean final legal, numbering, editorial or independent review clearance. Gateway cross-references remain working research routes rather than publication authority. Where none of the fourteen gateways describes what happened, the Navigator (Roadmap 150) carries a longer index of plain factual statements, organized by family — employment, custody health care, death in custody, records, procedure, bankruptcy and oversight. Where a gateway uses a term whose meaning matters — "prisoner," "employer," "debtor," "exhaustion," "claim presentation" — the Glossary (Roadmap 147) gives the controlling definition. Each gateway's list of Roadmaps names candidate research destinations, not a warranty that the cited number currently identifies the stated subject. The 079–099 and 100–124 namespace ranges remain under source-body reconciliation; worksheet references in 100–124 are provisional. Toolkits, models, defense playbooks and libraries are separate working resources rather than substitutes for the cited authority.

Who can use a process: the vocabulary this guidebook uses#

Each gateway asks "who can use the processes involved." The answer is given in plain roles rather than in the word "standing," because that word has several technical meanings that are easy to confuse. Article III standing is the federal constitutional requirement of injury, causation and redressability; it applies in federal court and nowhere else. Statutory standing is whether a particular statute gives a particular person a right to sue under it; the wrongful-death statute, for example, names who may sue. The real-party-in-interest rule asks whether the plaintiff is the person who owns the claim; an estate's claim belongs to the representative or successor, not to a relative who is neither. Administrative complainant eligibility is whatever an agency's rules say about who may file; the EEOC and CRD require an aggrieved person or someone filing on their behalf, while a licensing board accepts information from anyone. Whistleblower protections attach to the person who made a protected report and suffered for it, not to the subject of the report. And board complaint intake, as Gateway 13 explains, is open to people who could never bring a civil damages action at all.

The roles used below are: injured employee; former employee; applicant; licensed clinician; patient; incarcerated patient; former detainee or prisoner; estate representative; wrongful-death heir; whistleblower; witness; regulator; person reporting licensed-professional misconduct; and a third party with information but no private damages claim. A gateway that lists a role is saying that a person in that role may be able to use the process, not that they will succeed in it.

The gateways#

Gateway 1 — "I was terminated after requesting an accommodation."

What this might be. Potentially a disability-discrimination question under the ADA (Roadmap 012) and FEHA (Roadmap 013); potentially a failure-to-accommodate question (Roadmap 014) and a failure-to-engage-in-the-interactive-process question, which under FEHA is a separate violation (Roadmap 015); potentially a retaliation question under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 and Gov. Code § 12940(h) (Roadmap 019); if a leave was involved, potentially an FMLA/CFRA interference or retaliation question (Roadmap 024) or a pregnancy-related leave question (Roadmap 025); and, because every termination is one, a wrongful-termination question (Roadmaps 010 and 011).

What must be identified first. The exact entity that employed the worker (Roadmap 094; Entity Identity Worksheet 101). The date of the accommodation request and what it asked for. The date of the termination and the stated reason. Who decided (Roadmap 005). Whether a medical restriction was communicated and to whom. Whether the specific legal entity is named in verified bankruptcy filings and, separately, the date the asserted claim arose relative to any authenticated petition, plan and effective dates (Roadmaps 090–091).

Who can use the processes involved. The employee or former employee. An applicant, if the request was made during hiring. Not a coworker who witnessed it, except as a witness.

Forums potentially involved. Matrix Family A (EEOC, CRD, superior court, federal court); Family C for unemployment benefits after the separation (Roadmap 027.2); Family L if any employer entity was a debtor.

Roadmaps to read. 010, 012, 013, 014, 015, 019, 024, 033 (get the file), 034, 035, 094, 008.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the worker had a disability within the statutory definitions; whether the accommodation was reasonable; whether the termination was because of the request. Those are the elements, and they are decided on facts.

Gateway 2 — "My doctor cleared me to return but the employer refused to reinstate me."

What this might be. Potentially a return-to-work and medical-clearance dispute (Roadmap 016); potentially a failure-to-accommodate or interactive-process question if the employer demanded more than the clearance provided (Roadmaps 014 and 015); potentially a fitness-for-duty or medical-inquiry question if the employer required its own examination (Roadmap 017); potentially a direct-threat question if the employer asserted safety (Roadmap 018); potentially an FMLA/CFRA reinstatement question if the absence was protected leave (Roadmap 024), or a pregnancy-disability-leave reinstatement question (Roadmap 025); potentially a workers'-compensation question if the injury was industrial, including § 132a (Roadmap 037.1); potentially a constructive-discharge or termination question if the refusal became permanent (Roadmap 010).

What must be identified first. The clearance document and what it said. The employer's response, in writing if it exists. Whether the position was filled or eliminated. Whether the employer invoked a fitness-for-duty policy and whether that policy exists in writing. The entity that employed the worker. Whether state disability benefits were paid and when they ended (Roadmap 027.2).

Who can use the processes involved. The employee. The distinction between an employee on leave and a former employee matters for several statutes and should be settled from the records before any filing.

Forums potentially involved. Family A; Family C (SDI and UI); the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for § 132a (Family B's neighbor; Roadmap 037.1); Family L.

Roadmaps to read. 016, 017, 018, 014, 015, 024, 025, 037.1, 027.2, 033, 094.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the employer's safety concern was objectively reasonable; whether the clearance addressed the essential functions; whether the leave was exhausted. Each is fact-dependent.

Gateway 3 — "My employer says a different company employed me."

What this might be. The threshold question for every employment claim: employer identity. Potentially a joint-employer or integrated-enterprise question under FEHA and the ADA (Roadmaps 003 and 004); potentially a client-employer question under Labor Code § 2810.3 if a staffing or management company supplied the worker (Roadmap 094); potentially a hiring-notice violation under Labor Code § 2810.5 if the notice named the wrong entity or none; potentially a wage-statement question under Labor Code § 226(a)(8) if the statements named a different entity (Roadmap 026); potentially an unemployment-insurance wage-credit question (Roadmap 027.2); and, in the Wellpath setting, a debtor-or-non-debtor question (Roadmap 090).

What must be identified first. Every document that names an employer: offer letter, hiring notice, wage statements, W-2 (Roadmap 095), benefits documents, badge, handbook, separation notice, EDD determination, workers'-compensation notice, the county contract if public. The Entity Identity Worksheet (101) is built for this. Any authenticated petition, debtor schedule, plan, corporate filing and management-services agreement that can actually be obtained; if access is blocked, record the link and document as an unverified lead rather than assuming that an affiliated professional corporation was or was not a debtor (Roadmaps 004, 090–091).

Who can use the processes involved. The employee or former employee. The question arises before any process; it does not create one of its own, except for the records requests under Roadmap 033 and the statutory penalties for non-compliant notices and statements.

Forums potentially involved. Every forum in Family A and B, because each will ask who the respondent is; Family C; Family L.

Roadmaps to read. 003, 004, 094, 095, 033, 090, 091, 026, 027.2.

What this gateway does not tell you. Which entity was the employer for any purpose. Different statutes answer that question differently, and the records often disagree.

Gateway 4 — "I was disciplined after reporting patient-safety problems."

What this might be. Potentially retaliation for complaints about patient care (Roadmap 020); potentially a Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower question, with the § 1102.6 burden framework (Roadmap 021); Potentially a Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 question only after verifying a covered health facility and a protected statutory role; subdivision (j) separately excludes specified incarcerated-patient complainants, not every possible clinician retaliation theory. A Bus. & Prof. Code § 2056 issue requires qualifying physician advocacy of medically appropriate patient care, the alleged penalty and the statute's limitations (Roadmap 022); potentially retaliation after a report to a licensing board or regulator (Roadmap 023); potentially a Cal/OSHA § 6310 question if the complaint concerned workplace safety (Matrix K3); potentially a public-policy termination question if the discipline was termination (Roadmap 011); potentially a credentialing or peer-review question if privileges were affected (Roadmap 032).

What must be identified first. What was reported, to whom, when, and in what form; whether the report was internal or external; what the discipline was and when; who decided; what the decisionmaker knew about the report (Roadmap 005). Whether the particular place falls within § 1278.5's defined health-facility coverage and whether the complaining person falls within its protected class. A correctional medical unit cannot be treated as a covered or excluded facility solely because it is located in a jail; the statute's incarcerated-patient exclusion must be assessed separately (Matrix K9).

Who can use the processes involved. The worker or physician if the specific statute covers that person and the alleged adverse action. An independent contractor cannot simply be assumed to have all employee-only remedies; § 2056 expressly addresses some contractual relationships. A witness or other reporter without qualifying adverse treatment may still have a legitimate regulatory report, and whether a threatened or obstructive act is actionable requires its own legal test.

Forums potentially involved. Family A3 (superior court, with no administrative exhaustion for § 1102.5); Family B1 (Labor Commissioner § 98.7, optional); Family D if the report concerned a licensee; Family K (Cal/OSHA, regulators); Family L.

Roadmaps to read. 020, 021, 022, 023, 011, 031, 032, 033, 092, 093.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the report was a protected disclosure under any statute; whether the discipline was because of it. The § 1102.6 framework shifts a burden once a contributing factor is shown; it does not presume one.

Gateway 5 — "I believe nonphysicians overrode medical decisions."

What this might be. Potentially a corporate-practice-of-medicine question (Roadmap 030); potentially a professional-judgment-versus-administrative-direction question, which is the harder and more common one (Roadmap 031); potentially a § 2056 advocacy question if the physician objected and suffered for it (Roadmap 022); potentially a Medical Board or Osteopathic Board question as to any licensee's participation (Roadmap 092); potentially an Attorney General question under SB 351 or the unfair-competition law (Roadmap 093); and, if a patient was harmed, potentially a malpractice or constitutional question in which the override is evidence of causation or policy (Roadmaps 044, 047–049).

What must be identified first. Who made the decision, what their license or role was, and what document records it: a protocol, a utilization-review denial, an email, a staffing directive. Whether the decision concerned medical judgment or resource allocation, and whether a physician retained final authority on paper. The actual corporate, professional-corporation, county-contract and management-services instruments to the extent lawfully accessible, with each source's date and authenticity recorded; a narrative in Roadmap 090 alone does not prove control or the existence or terms of any particular agreement. The directive's rule governs this gateway: a CPOM concern does not automatically create a private damages action.

Who can use the processes involved. A licensed clinician as to advocacy retaliation; anyone with information as to a board complaint or an Attorney General complaint; a patient or estate as to malpractice or constitutional claims in which the override is evidence.

Forums potentially involved. Family E (no single forum); Family D; Family K8; Families F and I if a patient was harmed.

Roadmaps to read. 030, 031, 022, 092, 093, 090, 031's Title 15 provisions, 047–049.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether any arrangement violated the corporate-practice provisions; whether any override caused harm; whether any entity is liable to anyone.

Gateway 6 — "My wages or promised compensation were not paid."

What this might be. Potentially a wage claim under Labor Code §§ 200–204 and the waiting-time penalty under § 203 (Roadmap 026); potentially a contract question if the promise was written or oral (Roadmap 028); potentially a wage-statement question under § 226 (Roadmap 026); potentially a PAGA representative-penalty question only after checking the claimant's own qualifying Labor Code violations, LWDA notice date, standing and required statutory notice/cure rules; for notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, the 2024 reforms generally require the employee to have personally experienced each alleged violation, subject to the stated legal-services exception (Roadmap 026.1); potentially a deferred-compensation or ERISA question if the promise was a plan benefit (Roadmap 027); potentially a benefits-continuation question under COBRA or Cal-COBRA if coverage ended with the job (Roadmap 027.1); potentially a bankruptcy claim if the employer was a debtor and the wages were pre-petition (Roadmaps 090 and 091); potentially a classification question if the worker was paid as a contractor (Roadmap 095).

What must be identified first. The entity that owed the wages. The written terms, obtained under Labor Code § 432 if signed (Roadmap 033). The pay period and the wage statements. Whether the amount is "wages" as § 200 defines them or something else. The petition date, if the employer was a debtor, because pre-petition and post-petition wages are treated differently.

Who can use the processes involved. The employee or former employee for applicable wage remedies; a PAGA plaintiff only if statutory aggrieved-employee standing, notice and other prerequisites are met; a person with an actual claim against a debtor may need to assess proof-of-claim and plan procedures; a qualifying participant or beneficiary for an applicable ERISA plan, while some deferred-compensation promises may instead be governed by contract, tax and non-ERISA doctrines.

Forums potentially involved. Family B (Labor Commissioner; superior court; PAGA); Family A4 and K2 if ERISA; Family L.

Roadmaps to read. 026, 026.1, 027, 027.1, 028, 029, 033, 094, 095, 090, 091; Toolkit 126; Worksheets 101, 104 and 112; defense playbooks 137 and 139.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the promised amount is recoverable as wages; whether a bankruptcy claim was timely; whether an arbitration agreement governs (Roadmap 029).

Gateway 7 — "I was injured in a jail after delayed treatment."

What this might be. Potentially a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: for a pretrial detainee, under the Fourteenth Amendment's objective standard (Roadmap 042); for a convicted prisoner, under the Eighth Amendment's deliberate-indifference standard (Roadmap 043); the distinction is Roadmap 041's subject. Potentially a negligence or malpractice claim under state law, which is a different claim with a different standard (Roadmap 044). Potentially a Government Claims Act question if the county or its employees are defendants (Matrix Family J). Potentially a licensing-board question as to any clinician (Roadmap 092). Potentially a bankruptcy question if the contractor was a debtor (Roadmaps 090 and 091). If the patient was a minor held in a juvenile facility, the health-care standards, the rules on consent and the routes to the minor's records differ, and Roadmap 040.1 should be read first. Potentially, as a separate matter, a report to a public oversight body that can examine conditions but awards nothing (Roadmaps 097, 098 and 099).

What must be identified first. Custody status on the date of the delay (pretrial or sentenced). The dates of the request for care, the response, and the treatment. Who received the request and who decided. Whether the plaintiff is a statutory “prisoner” when the federal prison-conditions action is filed, whether applicable administrative remedies were in fact available and whether the prison's prescribed grievance steps were properly completed. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), (h) and the Ninth Circuit's Talamantes v. Leyva, a person released before filing is not automatically subject to PLRA exhaustion merely because the injury occurred during confinement; counsel must still examine other claim-specific requirements (Matrix I1; Ross v. Blake). The identity of the health-care contractor and the county. The medical records, obtained lawfully (Roadmap 007 and the records Roadmaps).

Who can use the processes involved. The injured person, whether still in custody or released. Not a family member on their own behalf, unless the person has died (Gateway 8) or a familial-association claim exists, which is a counsel question.

Forums potentially involved. Family I (federal court); Family F and I2 (superior court); Family J (claim presentation for public-entity defendants); Family D; Family K (BSCC, county health officer, grand jury, DOJ Civil Rights Division for systemic conditions — Roadmaps 097, 098 and 099); Family L.

Roadmaps to read. 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 007, 008, 092, 096, 096.1; the clinical-context page that fits the facts (051–063, 067–072); 075 (causation); 077 (qualified immunity and individual defenses); 078 (the Government Claims Act); 080 and 081 (PLRA exhaustion and limits); 082 (limitation periods and tolling); 083 (custody medical records); 097–099 (oversight); 040.1 if the patient was a minor; Worksheets 109, 115–117, 119 and 121; defense playbooks 135 and 141.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the delay was deliberate indifference or negligence or neither; whether the harm was caused by the delay; whether remedies were available to exhaust; whether the contractor's bankruptcy affects the claim.

Gateway 8 — "My family member died in custody."

What this might be. Potentially a wrongful-death claim under Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60 by persons qualifying under that statute's detailed categories—including specified relatives, eligible intestate successors and particular dependent or minor claimants—or on their behalf by the personal representative; and a distinct survival claim under § 377.30 brought by a duly qualified personal representative or statutory successor in interest (Matrix Family F); potentially a § 1983 claim for the decedent's constitutional injury, brought by the survivors as state law permits, and potentially the survivors' own constitutional claims (Family I); potentially a medical-malpractice claim subject to MICRA (Family F); potentially a Government Claims Act claim against the county and its employees (Family J); potentially a licensing-board matter as to each clinician (Roadmap 092); potentially a matter for the Attorney General, the BSCC, the county health officer, the grand jury, or the Department of Justice (Family K).

What must be identified first. Who may sue: the detailed § 377.60 categories, dependency/household requirements where applicable, and whether someone acts on behalf of statutory heirs. Whether a probate appointment or statutory successor declaration is necessary for a separate survival claim. The cause and manner of death supported by an official death certificate or appropriately obtainable coroner/medical-examiner findings; autopsy, investigation and underlying medical records can have separate disclosure restrictions and should not be assumed public in full. The custody status of the decedent. The contractor, the county, and each individual involved. The in-custody death reporting that state and federal law require (Roadmap 064 on death-in-custody investigations, mortality reviews and public reporting; Roadmap 093 on the Attorney General's role; Roadmap 099 on the federal Death in Custody Reporting Act), and the state and local bodies that may review the death (Roadmaps 097 and 098). Whether the facility has been the subject of earlier litigation, a consent decree or monitor reports, and what such documents can and cannot prove (Roadmap 048.1). If the decedent was a minor, the juvenile-facility rules (Roadmap 040.1). Whether the contractor was a debtor and whether the death preceded the petition date or the effective date (Roadmaps 090 and 091), including the opt-out mechanism for incarcerated persons' claims, whose timing the record states in two formulations that Roadmap 090 reports side by side.

Who can use the processes involved. Wrongful-death heirs; the estate representative; the successor in interest for survival claims; anyone with information for board and regulatory complaints.

Forums potentially involved. Families F, I, J, D, K, L.

Roadmaps to read. 040–050; 064 (death in custody: investigations, mortality reviews and public reporting); 065 (wrongful death and survival); 066 (professional negligence); 075 (causation); 076 (damages); 078 and 079 (the Government Claims Act and late-claim relief); 082 (limitation periods and tolling); 048.1 (settlements, decrees and monitor reports as evidence); 097–099 (state, local and federal oversight); 040.1 if the decedent was a minor; 008; 092; 093; 096; 096.1; 090; 091; Worksheets 111 and 122; Models 129.1 and 131.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether anyone caused the death; whether the standard of care was breached; whether the constitutional standard was met; which entity is responsible for which actor. The gateway opens the hardest doors in the project and closes none.

Gateway 9 — "I believe a jail healthcare contractor had a deficient policy."

What this might be. Potentially a § 1983 policy-or-custom theory under Monell if the actor acted under color of state law and the particular public entity or private contractor can be held responsible under the governing state-action and entity-liability rules (Roadmaps 046 and 047): an actionable policy, custom or sufficiently culpable failure to train, supervise or staff—not merely an unsatisfactory outcome—must cause a constitutional violation (Roadmaps 048 and 050); potentially a question of how such a policy is identified and proved (Roadmap 049); potentially a county-liability question on the same theories; potentially a systemic-conditions matter for the Department of Justice under CRIPA or for the BSCC and county oversight bodies (Family K); potentially evidence in a malpractice case of a departure from the standard of care, which is a different use of the same facts.

What must be identified first. The policy itself, if written, and where it came from: the contractor's manual, the county contract, Title 15, or practice. Whether the deficiency is in the written policy or in the gap between the policy and practice. Who had final policymaking authority. Whether the plaintiff's own injury was caused by the policy, because a deficient policy that did not cause this injury supports no claim for this plaintiff. Prior incidents, lawsuits, inspection findings, and monitoring reports as evidence of notice (Roadmaps 048.1 and 049).

Who can use the processes involved. A person injured by the policy, or the estate and heirs of a person who died; a person with information but no private claim, as to the regulatory and oversight bodies.

Forums potentially involved. Family I (federal court, the primary forum for Monell claims); Family K7, K11, K12 (Roadmaps 097, 098 and 099); Family L (the H.I.G. opinion's treatment of derivative claims is relevant to who may pursue claims that belong to a debtor's estate).

Roadmaps to read. 046, 047, 048, 048.1, 049, 050, 031, 073 (quality assurance and corrective action), 086 (county–contractor allocation), 087 (public records of correctional health contracts), 088 (standards and accreditation as evidence), 090, 096.1; 097–099 for the oversight bodies; Worksheets 110 and 123; defense playbook 142.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the policy was unconstitutional; whether it was the moving force behind any injury; whether the contractor, the county, or both are responsible. Monell is demanding by design.

Gateway 10 — "I need my personnel or payroll records."

What this might be. A request under distinct California Labor Code rights—§ 1198.5 personnel/performance and grievance records (including employer-maintained education and training records after SB 513 took effect January 1, 2026), § 226(b)–(c) wage statements, and § 432 qualifying signed employment instruments (Roadmap 033). A written request ordinarily begins outside a forum, but access, format, scope and remedies differ by provision; a preservation question (Roadmap 007); and, if the employer does not comply, a penalty and injunctive-relief question in the Labor Commissioner's office or superior court (Roadmap 033).

What must be identified first. The entity that holds the records, which may not be the entity on the badge (Roadmap 094); whether an employee-filed lawsuit concerning a personnel matter against that employer is actually pending, because the particular § 1198.5 inspection right has a lawsuit-pendency limitation; do not apply that limitation wholesale to § 226 wage-statement access or § 432 signed documents. Also determine whether the worker is current or former, who possesses training/payroll records and which statutory timing, location or frequency limits apply.

Who can use the processes involved. The current or former employee, or a representative. Not a coworker. Not a family member unless a representative.

Forums potentially involved. None required; Family B1 for the penalty; Family A3 for injunctive relief.

Roadmaps to read. 033, 007, 094, 038 (for records obtainable only in discovery).

What this gateway does not tell you. What the records contain or whether the employer will comply. It does tell you to keep a dated, narrowly scoped written request and delivery proof directed to verified employers or records custodians. Do not broadcast private medical, coworker or patient documents to every affiliated company merely because an entity name is uncertain; use separate identity verification and counsel-directed service where necessary.

Gateway 11 — "I received an agency position statement."

What this might be. The employer's response to an EEOC charge or a CRD complaint (Roadmaps 034 and 035); a documented account of the respondent's stated position, not necessarily its first written rationale; an opportunity to seek or prepare a timely fact-based response where that agency permits it (Roadmap 036). The position statement is also evidence: it may be compared with the reason given to EDD (Roadmap 027.2), the reason in the personnel file (Roadmap 033), and the reason later given in litigation.

What must be identified first. Which agency, charge, actual portal notice and investigator instructions apply. EEOC describes position-statement disclosure to charging parties (with confidential material potentially redacted), but its public respondent guidance discusses a 20-day opportunity while its charging-party portal guidance requests a response within 30 days; follow the actual case communication and obtain any extension in writing instead of relying on either general webpage. CRD response and disclosure procedures must be checked separately. Extract assertions, exhibits, version history, date-specific employer names and earlier explanations, labeling disputed corporate-identity statements as potential evidentiary statements rather than conclusively binding admissions (Roadmap 094).

Who can use the processes involved. The charging party.

Forums potentially involved. Family A1 or A2, where the statement was filed; the courts later.

Roadmaps to read. 034, 035, 036, 033, 094, 027.2, 039; Toolkits 125 and 125.1; Worksheet 113; defense playbook 139.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the agency will credit the statement; whether the stated reason is true. It does tell you to answer it, with documents, within the agency's time.

Gateway 12 — "I need to preserve evidence."

What this might be. The subject of Roadmap 007. Preservation runs in two directions: the reader's own duty to preserve what the reader has, and the employer's or contractor's duty to preserve what it has, which may derive from existing records-retention law even before a complaint: Gov. Code § 12946(a) generally mandates four-year retention for covered California employment records, and subdivision (b) adds a longer complaint-related hold following notice of a verified complaint; 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 establishes federal baseline recordkeeping plus charge-related preservation; reasonably anticipated litigation may require reasonable steps to prevent loss of relevant evidence (Roadmap 007). A tailored hold notice may help identify custodians, but sending one is not a substitute for statutory compliance or an automatic trigger of every duty.

What must be identified first. What the reader presently has, lawfully; what can be requested under statute (Roadmap 033; Health & Safety Code § 123110 for one's own medical records); what can be obtained only by discovery or subpoena (Roadmap 038); what is privileged or protected (peer review under Evid. Code § 1157; other patients' records); what must be preserved by others but need not be produced to the reader; and what the reader must not access, copy or remove. The six-way distinction is the heart of Roadmap 007 and of every worksheet.

Who can use the processes involved. Anyone; preservation is not a forum.

Forums potentially involved. None directly; every forum later.

Roadmaps to read. 007, 033, 038, 032, 006 (chronology), 039; for custody medical records, 083 (access, authorizations, audit trails and the CMIA), 084 (discovery) and 085 (peer review and other protections); 040.1 for a minor's records; 087 for public records; Worksheet 114; Model 132.

What this gateway does not tell you. It does not authorize taking anything from an employer's or facility's systems. The directive forbids it, and so does the law.

Gateway 13 — "I am considering a professional-board complaint."

What this might be. A complaint to the Medical Board, the Osteopathic Medical Board, the Board of Registered Nursing, the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians, the Physician Assistant Board, or the Dental Board, depending on the licensee (Roadmap 092; Matrix Family D). Board complaints can generally be made by people with information without a personal damages claim, but do not award civil damages. Investigation confidentiality, access to complainant materials and later public disciplinary records depend on the particular board and proceeding; do not promise blanket confidentiality or automatic public release. Filing a board complaint should not be assumed to suspend civil or agency deadlines. Disciplinary boards principally evaluate licensee conduct; a suspected corporate-practice or unlicensed-practice issue may require a distinct enforcement referral.

What must be identified first. The licensee's name, license type and number (public on the board's license-lookup site); the facility and dates; the medical records, which the board obtains by authorization or subpoena; whether the complaint concerns clinical conduct, which the board reviews with medical consultants, or corporate conduct, which it may not reach except through the licensee. Whether the complainant has a separate civil claim with its own deadline, because a board complaint does not preserve it.

Who can use the processes involved. Anyone: patient, family, coworker, clinician, employer, regulator, a person with no private claim at all.

Forums potentially involved. Family D; Family K8 (the Attorney General prosecutes accusations); never Families A, F or I by this route.

Roadmaps to read. 092, 093, 032 (why peer review is different), 023 (retaliation for reporting), 031; Toolkits 127, 127.1 and 127.2.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether the board will act, what it will find, or whether any civil claim exists. It does tell you that a board complaint and a lawsuit are different things with different clocks.

Gateway 14 — "I need to understand whether bankruptcy affects my claim."

What this might be. The subject of Roadmaps 090 and 091, subject to their unresolved indexing and source-body mapping. Start by identifying the precise legal name, claim-holder, injury, dates and legal basis. Obtain and authenticate the actual petition and debtor roster, separate case numbers, bar-date notices, operative plan, confirmation and effective-date orders, claims register, insurance provisions, any nondebtor-stay order and any opt-out materials that genuinely apply. Then test whether the exact person or entity is a debtor, nondebtor, insurer or statutory claimant; whether a claim arose pre- or postpetition; whether any filing or notice requirement applied; and whether an actual order stays, discharges, releases, channels or preserves it. Prior manuscript statements asserting 39 debtors, a particular CFMG exclusion, specific 2024–25 dates, opt-out timing, or granted nondebtor protection remain unverified research leads in this checkpoint because the underlying Wellpath/Epiq docket exhibits were not obtained and authenticated here. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma limits the power to impose nonconsensual third-party releases under the Bankruptcy Code, but does not by itself decide any Wellpath plan clause or claim; derivative-estate versus direct personal claims also require case-specific analysis.

What must be identified first. Everything in the preceding paragraph, from the public docket, in that order. The Entity Identity Worksheet (101) and the bankruptcy gate in Roadmap 096.1 Family L exist for this.

Who can use the processes involved. A creditor, claimant, estate fiduciary or other party with a legally cognizable bankruptcy interest may need the bankruptcy forum or an order-specific procedure. A claim asserted against a nondebtor is not automatically stayed or discharged merely because it concerns a debtor affiliate; nor can its freedom from a particular plan, injunction, derivative-estate theory or insurance provision be assumed without the operative documents and applicable law.

Forums potentially involved. Family L; every other family is affected by the answer.

Roadmaps to read. 090, 091, 096, 096.1, 003, 004, 094; 146 (entity reference); Worksheet 101; defense playbook 137.

What this gateway does not tell you. Whether any particular claim was discharged, released, channelled, or preserved. The record answers that entity by entity and date by date, and counsel reads the record.

Reading across gateways#

The gateways are not exclusive. The most common combinations in the facts this project addresses are:

• 1 + 2 + 3 + 10 + 14: a worker's accommodation, return-to-work, employer-identity, records and bankruptcy questions, which arise together whenever a multi-entity health-care employer separates a worker after a medical absence.
• 4 + 5 + 13: a clinician's report about care, the override behind it, and the board complaint it may lead to.
• 7 + 9 + 14, or 8 + 9 + 14: an injury or death in custody, the policy question behind it, and the bankruptcy question that may alter claims, procedures or remedies against some entities without conclusively determining every defendant's status.
• 6 + 3 + 14: unpaid compensation, employer identity, and whether the debt was discharged.
• 7 or 8, where the patient was a minor: the same questions, beginning with Roadmap 040.1.
• 7, 8 or 9 with no private claim at all: a person with information about conditions can still bring it to the oversight bodies in Roadmaps 097, 098 and 099, which examine and report but award nothing.

When several gateways apply, run deadline triage immediately and in parallel with evidence preservation; do not wait to complete a chronology, obtain an entire personnel file or resolve a corporate chart before protecting a potentially expiring charge, government claim, appeal, notice, proof of claim or civil action. In coordinated workstreams, identify actors (003, 005), verify entities (004, 094; provisional Worksheet 101), chronologize (006), preserve/request lawful records (007, 033), verify deadline sources (008) and assess appropriate forums with counsel (096, 096.1). A reader whose situation fits none of the gateways should turn to the Navigator (150).

What this guidebook cannot do#

It cannot tell a reader what kind of action this is. It can only tell a reader what kinds of question the facts raise and where those questions are answered. It cannot say that any reader has a claim, that any entity is responsible, where to file, or when a deadline falls. It cannot replace the Roadmaps it routes to, the worksheets that collect the facts, or the counsel who must decide.

Related roadmaps#

001, 001.1, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 009.1; 010–039; 040–050, 040.1, 048.1; 051–089; 090, 091; 092–096; 096.1, 096.2, 096.3; 097, 098, 099; 100–124 (provisional worksheet identifiers only; the alleged 101 Entity Identity Worksheet mapping is under hold); 125–128.1 (toolkits); 129–132 (pleading and claim models); 133–143 (defense playbooks); 144–149 (libraries, including the Glossary, 147); 150 (Navigator).