In Connelly v. State of California (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 744, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged the Department of Water Resources "negligently provided him with inaccurate information as to the anticipated rise in the Sacramento River," and that, had he been given correct information, he could have taken appropriate precautions to protect his marina property. (Id. at p. 747.) This pre-lawsuit government claim alleging a "failure to provide accurate information" did not encompass plaintiff's subsequent causes of action based on allegations that the Department had negligently released too much water from its dams. (Id. at p. 753.) In Nelson v. State of California (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 72, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged that he had suffered injuries as the " 'result of the failure of the Department of Corrections to diagnose and treat or allow him to maintain his ongoing medications.' " (Id. at p. 80.) This pre-lawsuit government claim for "medical malpractice" did not encompass plaintiff's subsequent cause of action based on allegations that personnel at the Chino prison facility had failed to summon immediate medical care in violation of section 845.6. (Nelson, at pp. 80-81.) In Fall River Joint Union School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged he had been injured by a dangerous condition on school property -- a heavy metal door that closed on him. This pre-lawsuit government claim did not encompass plaintiff's subsequent cause of action based on allegations that school personnel had "negligently failed to supervise students . . . engaged in 'dangerous horse-play.' " (Id. at p. 434.) In 1989, we find Smith v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 266. In Smith, plaintiffs' pre-lawsuit government claim alleged that the County had " 'cut into a hill' " to create a road, and that the " 'cut removed support' " for their houses and " 'created a landslide danger' " which damaged their properties. (Id. at p. 273.) This pre-lawsuit government claim was sufficient to encompass more than plaintiffs' inverse condemnation cause of action, and also encompassed plaintiffs' causes of action alleging nuisance and dangerous condition of public property. (Id. at pp. 279-281.) In Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged: " 'Highway was iced over, car went out of control and collided with a tree.' " (Id. at p. 223.) This pre-lawsuit government claim was sufficient to encompass more than a claim that the state Department of Transportation had maintained a dangerous condition by failing to remedy accumulated ice, and also plaintiff's theories that the road lacked guardrails, was improperly sloped, and did not have adequate warning signs. (Id. at pp. 224-226.) In Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged that he was injured in a prison yard basketball game, and that the personnel at the prison " 'refused to treat him' " even though he was " 'suffering from an obvious and debilitating injury to his leg.' " (Id. at p. 844.) This pre-lawsuit government claim encompassed plaintiff's subsequent cause of action based on allegations that the prison's personnel had failed to summon immediate medical care in violation of section 845.6; it did not encompass plaintiff's cause of action that prison personnel were negligent, i.e., liable for medical malpractice, when treatment did occur. (Watson, at pp. 843-845.) And, finally, in 2004, we have Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441. In Stockett, plaintiff's pre-lawsuit government claim alleged he had been "wrongfully terminated" for "supporting a female employee's sexual harassment complaints" against a supervisor. (Id. at p. 444.) This pre-lawsuit government claim was sufficient to encompass plaintiff's subsequent causes of action for wrongful termination based on theories of "illegal motivation" related to plaintiff's workplace objections to the supervisor's "conflict of interest" and plaintiff's workplace objections to purchases made without an "open bid process." (Id. at pp. 444-450.)