Compensation scheme to induce physicians to deny costly medical services 582
April 18th, 2012 
admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v Superior Court 203 Cal.App.4th 696 (2012) (2/7) Plaintiffs sued Kaiser for devising “compensation scheme to induce physicians to deny costly medical services,” which led to delayed MRI, late-detected cancer and death. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer K moved to strike punitive damages, CCP § 425.13, denied, writ denied. [1] § 425.13′s procedural requirements do not apply to health plans, but rather to health care providers. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Brownco Construction lawsuit 581
April 18th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Martinez v Brownco Construction Co., Inc 203 Cal.App.4th 507 (2012) (2/1) Plaintiffs CCP § 998 offer #1, $4.7M and 250K and months-later offer #2, $1.5M and $100K, neither accepted within 30 days. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer Trial verdict $1.6M and $250K. Plaintiffs costs included expert fees, 189K between offers, 65K after, video deposition prepared for trial, $12K, and PowerPoint used in closing argument, $87K. Motion to tax costs granted on experts between offers, denied otherwise. Reversed. [1] Video editing properly considered “reasonably necessary.” [2] PowerPoint may have been helpful in complex case’s closing argument, but not reasonably necessary. [3] Between-offer expert fees (question of first impression) to be treated as same as the second offer. The second does not extinguish the first. If first is a reasonable offer, not matter of gamesmanship, etc., then granting fees within court’s discretion. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Sex discrimination case 580
April 18th, 2012 admin Sex discrimination is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Ajamian v CantorCO2e LLP 203 Cal.App.4th 771 (1/5) (2012) Sex discrimination case. Employer’s arbitration petition denied, affirmed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] Arbitration agreement broadly worded, did not “clearly and unmistakably” give power to arbitrator to determine validity of agreement (including unconscionability) as required by Federal Arbitration Act 9 USC 1. (Same rule in California.) Fact that AAA. rules authorized arbitrator to do so is insufficient. [2] Agreement is unconscionable: Procedurally because presented as nonnegotiable adhesion contract. Substantive by requiring employee to waive statutory and punitive damages and for employer-only attorney fees. [3] Unconscionable provisions may be saved by Pearson Dental (If agreement ambiguous and reasonable interpretation would save it, then court should do so), not possible here where terms not ambiguous. [4] Staying in employment or accepting promotion is not tacit agreement to arbitration provision of employee handbook. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Group-bias peremptory juror challenges 579
April 18th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
P v Mata 203 Cal.App.4th 898 (2/1) (2012) Court found Batson/Wheeler violation (group-bias peremptory juror challenges) and sua sponte ordered subject juror reseated; did not seek consent or waiver from parties. Reversed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] Proper remedy is to call a new venire untainted by this violation. Only if other party consents may a juror be reseated. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
False imprisonment 578
April 18th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Shoyoye v County of Los Angeles 203 Cal.App.4th 947 (2/4) (2012) Shoyoye lawfully arrested but, due to a paperwork snafu, held 16 days too long. Jail employees treated his pleas with indifference, but no evidence of any threats, intimidation, coercion, etc., although in fear of other inmates. Judgment for CC § 52.1 (Bane Act), false imprisonment and attorney fees. Partially reversed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] Bane Act addresses more egregious constitutional right violations than negligence. At worst, jailers were rude, but under no duty to be polite. No evidence Shoyoye treated differently than other inmates. Attorney fee award coupled to Bane Act also reversed. [2] Evidence showed false imprisonment, and no different damages for Bane Act, so damages affirmed. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Law firm fees case 577
April 18th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Rosenson v Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger 203 Cal.App.4th 688 (2/5) (2012) Client Respondent disputed law firm’s fees. Fee agreement called for binding arbitration. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer Respondent requested bar association Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act B&PC § 6200 arbitration, which found partially for Respondent. Firm then demanded arbitration with JAMS but Respondent instead filed petition to confirm MFAA award, CCP § 1281, granted, reversed. [1] Normally an MFAA arbitration will be come final unless court filing within 30 days. But if fee agreement has separate arbitration clause, an arbitration demand within 30 days prevents MFAA from being final. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Driving with epilepsy 576
April 18th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Wang v Heck 203 Cal.App.4th 677 (2/4) (2012) Neurologist Heck cleared patient Sarleh, reporting to DMV that Sarleh was save to drive, as his epilepsy was controlled. In reliance, DMV issued Sarleh a license, but weeks later he had a seizure causing severe injury to Mr&Mrs Wang. Heck’s MSJ granted, affirmed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] Heck’s communication to DMV was “to government agency whose function it is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing,” and therefore within litigation privilege: 1) done by person authorized to communicate, 2) in judicial or quasi-judicial function, 3) to achieve object of litigation, and 4) logically related to proceeding. CC § 47 bars claim even in Heck were negligent in reaching the communicated opinion. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Fail to convey associated easement 575
April 18th, 2012 admin Breach of contract is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
SCI California Funeral Services v Five Bridges Foundation 203 Cal.App.4th 549 (1/5) (2012) Buyer SCI claimed seller Five Bridges breached the contract by failing to convey associated easement. SCI made CCP § 998 demand, $779K, judgment $1.7M, but SCI’s attorney fee motion on both § 998 and CC § 1717 grounds, denied (that SCI not the prevailing party), reversed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] § 998 gives court discretion to award post-offer attorneys fees, irrespective of whether party is prevailing. [2] Extended discussion of calculating damages for property burdened with easement. [3] Record on appeal must have page and volume citations. Using tab dividers is an inadequate substitute, and failure to cite to record properly justifies striking brief (32-volume record). San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Red light camera case 574
April 17th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
People v Borzakian 203 Cal.App.4th 525 (2012) (2/7) Red-light camera case where system’s computer produced video and data text (speed, light’s duration, etc.). San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer Officer testified based on computer’s output. Reversed. [1] Ev C §§ 1552-1553 establish only that computer’s video and printouts work properly, not that they are accurate representations of what they purport to portray. Ev C § 1271 business record not satisfied where officer did not testify as to the records’ “mode of preparation in every instance.” San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Defamation case 573
April 17th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Hecimovich v Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization 203 Cal.App.4th 450 (2012) (1/ 2) Anti-SLAPP. Hecimovich removed as volunteer coach of 4th grade after-school sports, and sued those responsible for defamation, breach of contract, etc., all arising out of one player’s substantial misconduct. § 425.16 motion denied on first prong (that defamation cannot be subject to anti-SLAPP), reversed. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer [1] Motion to augment record on appeal, to include first amended complaint filed after motion filed, denied. Amended complaint after 425.16 motion filed is forbidden. Nguyen-Lam 171 CA4th 858-implicit amendment to conform to 425.16 motion’s proof-limited to its unusual facts. [2] Defamation actions are subject to anti-SLAPP, the very first of favored SLAPPable causes of action. [3] Matter is of public interest: Court cites, inter alia, millions of Google hits for “problem parents in youth sports” and “problem coaches in youth sports.” [4] No probability of success on merits where neither defamatory statements nor malice to defeat qualified privilege § 47(c), and elements of a contract not alleged. [5] Contract actions are within scope of anti-SLAPP. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off