., _ --- _. ; ..,.. BINDING ARBITRATION. Claimant. ARBITRATOR s A WARD
|
|
- Griselda Simmons
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2
3
4 2 ".l Q BINDING ARBITRATION ADR SERVICES, INC. 10 II \ 'S Claimant. ~ Arbitration No. II 013 ARBITRATOR s A WARD 16 I 7 Respondents ~0 21..,.. --'.,. _) _ --- _. ; Claimant individually and successor in interest to. complaint assens claims for (I) medical malpractice/ professional negligence: (::?) breach of contract: (3) breach of the covenant good faith and fair dealing and violation of Insurance Code section 790.3: (4) negligent and statutury violation of Civil Code section 34:!8: and (5J unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section against respondents. and Dr. (''Dr. :!6 l <colkcti\'ely. "Respondents.. ). :!7 Regarding the first cause nt' action... The dements of a cause of action tor negligence are ~8 wdl established. They arc '(a) a kgal duty tu use due can:; (b) a breach of such legal dut~; land] A rhi1r.11inn 1\n II
5 (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. (!.add\'. ( 'mmr.1 (~(.\'an 'l.\.fmeo ( 1996) 12 Cal.4th ) Medical negligence is still negligence. ''With resj'>'!ctto 3 professionals. their specialized education and training do not serve to impose an incrc<~scd duty 4 of care but rather are considered additional circumstances relevant to an overall assessment of 5 what constitutes ordinary prudence in a punicular situation. Thus. the standard for 6 professionals is aniculated in temls of exercising 'the knowledge. skill and care ordinarily 7 possessed and employed by memhc!rs of the profession in good standing....' ICitation.j" 8 (F/ouwl,.. Tummn:.\1emorial Ho:;pital.\fediml Centa (1994) 8 Cal.-4th 99~. 9q7-998: sc:c 9..-I so C 1\('1. No. SOO.) 10.. Becaus~ th~ standard of car~ in u m~dical malpractice case is a matter pe-culiarly within I 1 the knowledge of cxpcns [citation]. cxpen testimony is requirl!d to pro\'e or dispro\'e that the 12 defendant performed in accordance with the standard prevailing of care unless the negligence is 13 Ob\'ious to a layperson. (Citation.)" c.johnson 1'. Superior Court ( 2006) 143 Cal.App..tth ).. In a medical malpractice action. a plaintiff must pro\'c the dct~ndant' s negligence was a 15 cause-in-fact ofinjury.[citntion.j'thc law is well settled that in a personal in.iury action 16 causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based I on! competent cxpcn 17 testimony... (Citation. j" (Jenning.'>,.. Palomar Pomt rcldo 1/.:alth Sy... tems. Inc. t ~00-4) I I 4 18 Cai.Apf'.4th 1 HUt I I 17. l I 9 Claimant argued R~spondems brc:achc:d the: standard of care in several ways. On th~ 10 issues of breach and causation. the arbitrator tinds claimant did not establish either of these 2 I elements by a preponderance: of the evidence. Whether or not decedent was pro\'ided with a 22 current asthma actiun plan. the arbitr.ttor concurs with thc Respondents' ex pen that the lack of a 23 current asthma action plan did nor. within a reasonable medical probability. result in 24 death. Similarly. the arbitr.ttor agrees with Respondents' expert that the fitilure to 25 prescribe Prednisone at the home and the failure to conduct furthl.!r asscssmc:nts did not. within a 26 reasonable medical probability. result in death. Claimant did not carry 27 her burden of establishing. that Respondents breached the standard of care in Jailing to prescribe 28 an additional inhaler/ refill. I 'l \rnimuinn ""o 110 I 1
6 Regarding claimants' second and third causes of action. "A statement of a cause of action 2 for bn:ach of contract r~u i res a pleading of Cl) the contract. (2) plaintio~s perfonnance or 3 excuse fornon perfonnance. (3) defendant's breach. and (4 ) damage to plaintiitthercfrom. 4 (.'krmstic.\. lm.,.. Treptt' Constrm:t ion Co.. Inc. { I t>71 ) 14 Cai.App.3d ~87. Q 13.) " Every 5 contract imposes upon each pany a duty of good faiih and fair dealing in its pt:rfomlance and its 6 entorccmcnt." (Rcst.:!d Contracts. 205.) "There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair 7 dealing in e\'cry contract that neither pany will do anything which will injure the right of the 8 other to receive the benefits of the agreement." ( Conuuwle \'. 7i'tulc:r., & Cit nc:ral Ins. ( 'o. ( I 958) tj 50 Cal.2d : sec also CACI. No. 325.) Purely trom a pl~ading r erspcctivc. claimant' s I 0 third cause of action appears to be redund;mt of her second cause of action. "I \V)here breach of 11 an &~ctual h:nn is alh:gcd. a separate implied covenant claim. based on the smnc hrcach. is 1::! superfluous... (Guz,.. Becluel :\'ational. bw (::!CJOO) 24 Cal. 4th J ) In any case. claimant 13 did not carry her burden of proof in establishing eith~r one of these: claims. 14 Regarding claimant s founh cause of action. "Civil Code SI!Ction 3 4~8 places real 15 obligations on a health care 5erviec plan." ( Wawnahe '' C 'al~lilmi(t Phy.'>icions.c.. eitict' ( ~OOR) Cal.i\pp.4th ) Subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 3428 provides: "For sen ices 17 rendered on or after January a health care service plan or managed care entity... shall I M have a duty of ordinary cure to arrange tor the provision of medically n~cessnry health care 19 service to its subscribers und enrollees. where the health care service is a benefit provided under 20 the plan. and shall be liable for any and all harm lcgallr caused br its failure to exercise that 21 ordinary care when both uf the following apply: t I) The failure to exercise ordinary car~ resulted 22 in the denial. delay. or modilieatiun of thc health care service recommended for. or furnished to. ~3 a subscriber or enrollee. (:!) The subscriber or enrollee sutrered substantial haml... The arbitrator 24 agrees with Respondents that claimant did not c-arry her burden of proof in establishing this 25 claim. Claimant oftcred no evidence in suppon of direct liability against n:sponjents :2(-, 27 Regarding claimant's li fth cause of action for unfair husincss practices. the claim is ::!8 prl!dicated on a showing of Respondents liability on any of thl! lirst four cause:; of action. For.>\rhitrntion Nn \ 3
7 the reasons stated above. claimant did not carry her burden in establishing liability against 2 Respondents on any of the first four causes of action and. therefore. claimant also fails to curry 3 her burden with regard to the fifth cause of action. 4 Consequently. the arbitrator tinds in favor of Respondents on all tive causes of action. 5 Claimant shall recover nothing from Respondcmts Nothing in this arbitration decision prohibits or restricts the enrollee from discussing or reporting the underlying facts, results, terms and conditions of this deeision to the Department of Managed Health Care. 10 II 12 l ,,.,...,./ -.;: ::-;t{~.--z- <.J.;;, (:~-<-2~- Hon. James C. Emc:rson (Ret. l I Arhirrarion N~ I
8 Attorneys for Res~ondents In The Matter Of The Arbitration Between: and Claimant, Arbitration No.: ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION FORSUNfldARYJUDGMENT Date: July 12,2013 Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Telephonic Appearance R:::. e::::'s=o::::n<:.:.le::::n:;:ts:::.: ' Arbitration Date: October 21, The Motio* for Summary Judgment filed by Respondents i came on regularly for hearing before The 1-lonomble James R. Emerson (Retired) on July 12,2013.., Esq.. appeared for the respondents, however, claimant I having been duly n,oticed, failed to appear. i No legal 01'1 fnctual opposition was filed by claimant prior to the hearing. The Arbitrator flnds that I the declarations fil$<1 by the respondents are persuasive and sufflcient to carry the motion had the claimant!i appeared and that there exists no triable issue of fact to be adjudicated. Accordingly, good cause exists to grant, and the Arbijrator does hereby grant, the respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Claimant will take nothing by his claim. Each party shall bear its own attorneys fees and costs. IIIII Ill!/!Ill/ ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR SllMMARY JUDGMENT
9 l ! 10 I I I i 26 I 27 Nothing in this Order prohibits or restricts the enrollee fl"om discussing or reporting the i underlying facts, results, terms and conditions of this Order to the Department of Managed Health I Cam 2 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 28 i 91 I
10
11
12
13
14 BINDING ARBITRATION Al)I{ S~:RV I CES, INC. 11 (in h<. r 0~11 capacity. and as Arhitratio11 '.lo. I Successor in I ulcre.sl to lhc EsUllc of Dcccd<. nt 13 ); arll1 /\Rlll'I RATOR'S AWARD 14 Clainlants, , tv1.l)., Cl (II., f{espondents Claimants and (co11cctiv<:ly. ' Claimants") assen a clai1n 21 tor professional negligence (1nedicat n1alprac-tice) ag.ain~1 re~pondcnls M.ll., an~. M.D. (collc<'tivcly, "Respondents"). 2~ The e.len1enl..:; of a cau~ of actil)ll for negligc::nct: arc vtcll <.'Slab1ishctL Tht y arc (a) a 25 legal duty to use due care.; (b) a breach of.o;.uch legal duly: Lan<.IJ (c) the brc~ch a:; the proximate 26 or Jcgal <.:ttusc of the n sulting i~iut)'. "'(Ladd'' Cou111.. v of.<ian 1\.lutet1 (1 <)96) 11 ( 'aj.41.h 91 J, ) Mcdi..:al ncgligt.:ncc.~ is ~till ncgligcnoc. ' \Vith rcs1,cct to l'rofes.siojlajs. their SJ'>eCial i1ed 21': education and trainiog d<1 oot 5.erve tc) irnpost! un inc.:rcu.scd duty of c. arc but IJ.thcr arc considc. rcd
15 additional circunlsta.n<:~s relevant 0 an overall a.::sessn1en1 c..1f '"hc1l 1.:on::tlilolt:~ ordiru1r}' 2 prudcnc-<:' in a panicular situation. Thus. the standard for profi::ssi<)n9i:,. is ar1iculalcd io Lenn:-. or.3 cxc..':fcising 'the kilo\\)edgc. ski11 and care ordinarily J>Ossessed and e1n1llt))ed ll)' nleinher$.ofthe 4 profe:::$.il)ll i 1l gt)l)d 'ltan<ling... : l('i1u1icnl.j.' (t:to... :er~ v Torr<111ce J\f(i1nori<1I Hospil<1/ Jie<li<. <1/ 5 Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th X: "'"al«> CACI, No. 500.) 6 "Bec.ause the standard of<:are in a nledicaj nlaf1lra~til:t:: 1.:u~ i ~ ~ rnaut::r pt::eulihrl) v.. i1hin 7 lhc.. k.no\vlcdgc Of expcns' rcitation ). exj)c'n testillloll). is required 11) prn\'e t)r di:::pro\, e thal thl! X di::ft:ndant pcrf(.lrme,.xl in ac.. cordunce vi:ilh th<. stru1dard prevailing of car~ unless the negligence is 9 oh\'iou..::: to a la~ 1)c?rson. l<:i1ation.j" (.11>/111.'ion,.. \'u1jerior ('ourl (2006) 143 t~u1.app.4lh 297. I ) "l n a n1edical rnalpractice actio11. a plain Liff lllusl pro\c tht: dc:lt!ndaru :-. oegl igence- v.a.~ a 11 causc in fit<.'l ofi~jury. rcitation.1 Thc )a\\' is \Vell settled that in a persrinal injury action 12 cau~jl ic.,1n mu~l be proven v. ilhin a rc::i.sonable medical probability based. (onl co1npctcnt cxpc te~ti nlony... lc ii..'llicnl.j.. (Jenni11gs,.. /'(J/<nnar Pon1er<1<lo Healrh S)'Ste1ns.!11c. (2004) l Cal.App.4th I I I 7.) 15 As is lypica)1~ the case in mcdica) 1nalprac1ice clainls. llle arbitrator is i'1'c'senlc'd ''ith 16 c~1111peli ng c:xpc:n l t::':'-l i mon~ regarding lhc appropriate standard of c-.are. breach. and causation. 17 The arhitralor. iu hi~ n 1tc ri:; lht: f'~1t.:t llndt:r. dctcmlln<.'s \vhic.. h of the co1npeting experts is the 18 n1orc con\ inc.. ing. ($(.'('general!)' P1. 011lc v..<il.'ato11 (2001 ) 26 ('al.4th ihe j ury i:; 19 cap~1blc of deciding \\hic., h of lhc.. competing ex pens is the n1ore convincing... ) 20 "tlie hi" i ~ \Veil sctllcd that in a pc.. rsonal inju~ action causation n1u..'t he pro\. en 21 v. ithin a n.::a..".>uubje mejic~1l probability based on c.on11)etent exj)f'rt testin1ony. 22 ):lere possihilit)' alone i~ i f1:;;uffi~ie11l lfl i::-.;lnbli:;h H prima ta(.'ic.. c..-.asc..-. That th-crt~ is 23 ~1 di~linclion bctv. cen a n~asonablc n1cdic-.al 'j)(1)hahiliry' aod a O)edi~al 2-4 p<:1.s.;ibili1:v needs lilt}c discussion. There c~u1 be n1an: possible causes: indeed 25 an iofinite 1unlhcr- ~)r i.:i r(;utr1'.:l1 i1111.:e~ lbtll can produce an i1tjtu: or disease. :\ 26 possible cause only be-con1es 't)rl)hahle \\ hen, in the absence of other retisonablc 27 causal explanations. it beco1111. s 111or1. lik~~v tl1un J"tol thut the in;ur.v 11 a.\ 11result1if 28
16 its t1ctit>n. rhis. is 1hc 1)u1cr limi1 1,l f 2 subnlined co dle jury. in1crcn<. c upon \Vhich an issue may be j ' 4 Thus. pro11cring: un cxpcrl opinion that there is so111e theoretical J')()S..~i hility the 5 oegligcnl ;)Ct <:ouki /J(,J\'(' bt!en u cuusc-in-1acl of a pat1icttlar injw) is insufficient 6 LO establish cau~~11ion. Instead, 1bc plain1ilr musl otl<. r an expert opinion that 7 contai11s a rea~)jled explanation illu1t1ioating '"by!he JN<: l~ have convinc<. d the 8 expen, and therefore. should con\o ince. the jury. Lhat it i~ m<1re pr<1huhle 1ht111 not 9 the ncgligcn( acl 'A'as u cuusc-in-(rct of the plaintiil's injury: 10 (.Jennings r. Pu/01nar Po1ner1ulo I lea/th.1:i)'sle1ns. 111<-. (2004) J 14 Cal.App.4th 11 OS : internal citations: and pullcrua1i110 on1i1ted; ertlpluj$i!) original.) 12 In this case. du~ arbitrator finds d1e expen te-5tin1l'jll)' pmffe-red hy ( 1airnalll$. regardi1lg l J causation insufflcicnl to sustai11 their burden of proof. Vlhile it is abundanll)' clear that 1 ~ dc.::alh \l AS trrjgii.: and a 1.ri:cne11dou::. loss for c:taimanls. the evidence do<. s 11ot support a JS finding that it is 01ore prt)hahle than lll)t that fill}' acls <1r vrr1 is~dons l:iy lhc Respondents,.. 'Crc u 16 cause-in-fact of death. /\!though c:laio1ant$i' ex pt:rl~ p('l:;tulated a lhcvry lhat n1y<.~lopro}ifcrativc disorder (M'PO) caused hinl to ~iffer a fatal suhdural he,natorna, the causal nexus i::. r~1r Loe.> alleoualed 10 :::;uppor1 any liability.. l\cc.ordingl)' the arhitrator find::; in 13.vl"'lr <.)f l{e~pondr.;nt::>. C l~1imanls sh(1ll rt:covcr nothing fron1 Rcs1>0ndent. Nothing in this arbitration d e-.cis ion llrohihits or rcstrii::ts the cnrolltc fro rn.,liscussing or rfporting the underlying facts, rt>.sults, ternt!i: and condition!i: of thi!i: decision to the l>e1lartn1c11t ofl\.1anagt-d llealth ( ~a re Dated:,''e~- '/ 2.cl "..... z~~ -t~.,,.,., ~(c"u1. J arn~ ('. r;men;<,1n (R.:L) J A 1hi1ri:.1i 1"1t'I 'J" 1 nooo;
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1 2 IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN vs., Claimant,, M.D.,, M.D. Respondents.. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 14478
1 2 IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 vs., Claimant,, M.D.,, M.D. Respondents.. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 14478 RE: RESPONDENT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OR
More informationRobert A. Rees [State Bar No ] Rees Law Firm P.C Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California Telephone: (310) 27
1 2 3 4 5 Robert A. Rees [State Bar No. 94295] Rees Law Firm P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7071 Facsunile: (310) 277-7067 E-mail: robertreeslaw@att.net
More informationLAWATYOURFINGERTIPS NO LIABILITY WHERE FRIEND AGREED TO HELP WITH ROOF REPAIR AND FELL OFF HOMEOWNERS ROOF:
LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS NO LIABILITY WHERE FRIEND AGREED TO HELP WITH ROOF REPAIR AND FELL OFF HOMEOWNERS ROOF: Friend agreed to help homeowner repair roof. Friend was an experienced roofer. The only evidence
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/21/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT EMMA ESPARZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAWEAH DELTA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, F071761 (Super.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 11/18/14 Escalera v. Tung CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 7/31/18; Certified for Publication 8/16/18 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE AMALIA WEBSTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B279272
More informationCASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
CASENOTE LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS A PLAINTIFF S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONSTITUTES A FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OR AWARD, THUS TRIGGERING A DEFENDANT S RIGHT TO EXPERT WITNESS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
Filed 8/2/17 Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, Petitioner, B241137 (Los Angeles County
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 18, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 18, 2009 Session DONALD WAYNE ROBBINS AND JENNIFER LYNN ROBBINS, FOR THEMSELVES AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALEXANDRIA LYNN ROBBINS v. PERRY COUNTY,
More information) ) N. State College Blvd. Suite Orange, CA Telephone: (714) Fax: (714) ) )
5 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 CASE MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM A telephonic hearing was conducted November 1, 2012 (Hearing, to consider the Motion for Summary Judgment submitted
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELMA BOGUS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT BOGUS, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2006 Plaintiff-Appellant, V No. 262531 LC No. 03-319085-NH MARK SAWKA, M.D.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 5/29/03; pub. order 6/30/03 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ANTONE BOGHOS, Plaintiff and Respondent, H024481 (Santa Clara County Super.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 9/25/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX LUIS CANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B187267 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO WILSON DANTE PERRY, B264027 v. Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0246, Lionel A. Perreault & a. v. Douglas M. Goumas, M.D. & a., the court on April 7, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs
More informationCASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS MSJ IS UPHELD IN CLAIM FOR PREMISES LIABILITY WHERE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW THAT TRUSTEE OF PROPERTY WAS AT FAULT ACCORDING TO THE PROBATE CODE. LIABILITY
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 4/1/15; pub. order 4/14/15 (see attached) (reposted 4/15/15 to correct description line date; no change to opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EARL B.
More informationMELISSA PRINCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH CENTRAL et al., Defendants and Respondents. C052530
Page 1 MELISSA PRINCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH CENTRAL et al., Defendants and Respondents. C052530 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS
More informationCertiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 DIAZ V. FEIL, 1994-NMCA-108, 118 N.M. 385, 881 P.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1994) CELIA DIAZ and RAMON DIAZ, SR., Individually and as Guardians and Next Friends of RAMON DIAZ, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PAUL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT PONTE, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2012 v Nos. 298193; 298194 Washtenaw Circuit Court SANDRA HAZLETT, d/b/a HAZLETT & LC No.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 2/24/11 O Dowd v. Hardy CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationCASENOTE. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS By James G. Randall, Esq
CASENOTE LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS By James G. Randall, Esq Employer not liable for accident of employee who was returning from a dentist appointment while on her lunch break and driving her own vehicle Filed
More information1 of 3 DOCUMENTS B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO Cal. App. LEXIS 630
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS SHAOXING CITY MAOLONG WUZHONG DOWN PRODUCTS, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KEEHN & ASSOCIATES, APC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. B256988 COURT OF APPEAL OF
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationGray v. Am. Safety Indem. Co.
Gray v. Am. Safety Indem. Co. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four December 3, 2018, Opinion Filed B289323 Reporter 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8160 * DEBRA GRAY et al.,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 12/28/12 Hong v. Creed Consulting CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More information6 of 11 DOCUMENTS. Guardado v. Superior Court B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT
Page 1 6 of 11 DOCUMENTS Guardado v. Superior Court B201147 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT 163 Cal. App. 4th 91; 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 765
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTHERN DISTRICT (LANCASTER)
Michael M. Pollak (SBN 0) Barry P. Goldberg, Esq. (SBN ) POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 0 Los Angeles, CA 00- Telephone: () 1-00 Facsimile: () 1- Attorneys for Defendant Paso Oil Co., Inc.,
More informationHereford Ins. Co. v Bon Acupuncture & Herbs, P.C NY Slip Op 32445(U) September 28, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
Hereford Ins. Co. v Bon Acupuncture & Herbs, P.C. 2018 NY Slip Op 32445(U) September 28, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155884/2017 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000"
More informationNO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 28654 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I SHARON S.H. CHIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VENETIA K. CARPENTER-ASUI, Defendant-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----
Filed 5/21/18 Gudino v. Kalkat CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/3/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARY ANSELMO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court DAVID CHENGELIS, M.D., and WILLIAM LC No NH BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ZACK ATAKISHIYEV, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 19, 2017 v No. 332299 Oakland Circuit Court DAVID CHENGELIS, M.D.,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KURT A. LOCKWOOD, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JERRI LOCKWOOD, FOR PUBLICATION June 7, 2011 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 295931 Saginaw Circuit
More informationCASENOTE James Grafton Randall, Esq. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE James Grafton Randall, Esq. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS Filed 10/27/15; pub. order 11/23/15 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LANDLORD'S DUTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171
Filed 5/16/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B156171 (Los Angeles County
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B253978
Filed 5/26/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE SONDRA WISE KUMARAPERU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B253978 (Los Angeles
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 2/28/12; pub. order 3/16/12 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHAWNEE SCHARER, D057707 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN LUIS REY EQUINE
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Filed 1/13/16 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LOUISE CHEN, ) No. BV 031047 ) Plaintiff
More information2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
162 Cal.App.4th 261 Page 1 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Francisco
More informationTHERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]
THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]! JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS ! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/6/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VON BECELAERE VENTURES, LLC, D072620 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ZENOVIC, (Super.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/30/16 Friend v. Kang CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 2/23/15 Cummins v. Lollar CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 8/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX GERARDO ALDANA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B259538 (Super.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 4/19/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAROLYN WALLACE, D055305 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00079950)
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #133634) LUKE G. PEARS-DICKSON, ESQ. (SB #296581) THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: Facsimile:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 2/8/18; Certified for Publication 3/1/18 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE TRAVIS SAKAI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B279275
More informationWestlaw. Page I. Only the West law citation is curfently available.
Westlaw (Cite as: 2006 WL 1101797 (CaI.App. 2 Pist.» Only the West law citation is curfently available. California Rules of Court. rule 8.1115. restricts citation of unpublished opinions in California
More information) ) ) BACKGROUND. The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving
STA TE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, ss. TD BANK, N.A. fyk/a First Massachusetts Bank, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION DOCKET NO. RE-16-34 V. Plaintiff, TERRY CORMIER and JODINA CORMIER, Defendants. ORDER AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No
[Cite as Ballreich Bros., Inc. v. Criblez, 2010-Ohio-3263.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY BALLREICH BROS., INC Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No. 05-09-36 v. ROGER
More informationFiled 3/20/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 3/20/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
More informationFader, C.J., Wright, Leahy,
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-17-001428 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2173 September Term, 2017 EDILBERTO ILDEFONSO v. FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 12/12/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE AMANDA MITRI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNEL MANAGEMENT
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 9/15/17 Ly v. County of Fresno CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT WHEN PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO SLIP AND FALL DUE TO UNKNOWN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR. DEFENDANT
More informationPLANT ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES
PLANT ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES PLANT ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES Pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Plant Asbestos
More informationFIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT TRAINING SEMINAR January 21, 2006
FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT TRAINING SEMINAR January 21, 2006 When the Defendant Becomes a Plaintiff... PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL APPELLATE PRACTICE J. Bradley
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 4/14/14 Certified for publication 5/7/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX ALEXANDER NAMIKAS, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d
More informationCASENOTE CAL-OSHA REGULATIONS APPLY TO A LANDLORD WHO HIRES AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PAINT HIS RENTAL PROPERTY BY JAMES G. RANDALL LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE CAL-OSHA REGULATIONS APPLY TO A LANDLORD WHO HIRES AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PAINT HIS RENTAL PROPERTY BY JAMES G. RANDALL LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS Unlike a homeowner hiring one to do work on his personal
More informationCITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC LEGAL OPINION TO: FROM: PRESIDENT LARRY REID AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BARBARA J. PARKER CITY ATTORNEY DATE: MARCH 7, 2018 RE: CITY ATTORNEY S AUTHORITY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 12/21/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE PIONEER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B225685 (Los Angeles
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELIZABETH KRUSHENA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2013 v No. 306366 Oakland Circuit Court ALI MESLEMANI, M.D. and A & G LC No. 2008-094674-NH AESTHETICS,
More informationE-Filed Document Dec :16: IA SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CIVIL ACTION NO.
E-Filed Document Dec 22 2016 15:16:12 2016-IA-00571-SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI FAWAZ ABDRABBO, MD. APPELLANT VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2016-IA-00571-SCT AUDRAY (ANDRES) JOHNSON (PRO SE)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF MICHAEL POULICAKOS (New Hampshire Retirement System)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationTort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records
Tort Reform 2011 Medical Malpractice Changes (SB 33; S.L. 2011 400) o Enhanced Special Pleading Requirement (Rule 9(j)) Rule 9(j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires medical malpractice complaints
More informationMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Bingham McCutchen LLP JAMES J. DRAGNA (SBN 91492) 2 COLIN C. WEST (SBN 184095) THOMAS S. HIXSON (SBN 193033) 3 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 4 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 11/14/14; pub. order 12/5/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE EILEEN ANNOCKI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B251434
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC539194) v.
Filed 12/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JUSTIN KIM, B278642 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/30/16; pub. order 4/28/16 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO D. CUMMINS CORPORATION et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationThe Honorable Roger J. Traynor Collection. Follow this and additional works at:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Opinions The Honorable Roger J. Traynor Collection 4-19-1965 Doyle v. Giuliucci Roger J. Traynor Follow this and
More informationGwinn & Roby Attorneys and Counselors
Texas Omnibus Civil Justice Reform Bill HB 4 Presented by Greg Curry and Rob Roby Greg.Curry@tklaw.Com rroby@gwinnroby.com Gwinn & Roby Attorneys and Counselors Overview Proportionate Responsibility, Responsible
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 9/27/12; pub. order 10/23/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MICHAEL JEROME HOLLAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B241535
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/31/12; pub. order 8/20/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLAIRE LOUISE DIEPENBROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant v. KYLE
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 679 WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOY L. DIEHL AND STEVEN H. DIEHL, HER HUSBAND, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants J. DEAN GRIMES A/K/A DEAN GRIMES, v. Appellee
More informationSuperior Court of California
Superior Court of California County of Orange Case Number : 30-2017-00910098-CU-BC-CJC Copy Request: 3073376 Request Type: Case Documents Prepared for: cns Number of documents: 1 Number of pages: 7 1 Lawrence
More information(Use for claims arising on or after 1 October For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil )
PAGE 1 OF 11 (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011. For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil 809.03.) NOTE WELL: Res Ipsa Loquitur has been approved as an option for liability
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 10/26/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX AL KHOSH, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B268937 (Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 10/7/15 Doll v. Ghaffari CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 130A Article 17 1
Article 17. Childhood Vaccine-Related Injury Compensation Program. 130A-422. Definitions. The following definitions apply throughout this Article, unless the context clearly implies otherwise: (1) "Claimant"
More informationPursuant to Rule 50(b), Ala. R. Civ. Proc., Defendant, Mobile Infirmary Association,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2/9/2017 1:30 PM 02-CV-2012-901184.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA VOSHON SIMPSON, a Minor, by and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B157114
Filed 4/26/04; pub. order 5/21/04 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN DIANE NEWELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B157114
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B256117
Filed 6/17/15 Chorn v. Brown CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationc 280 Municipal Arbitrations Act
Ontario: Revised Statutes 1937 c 280 Municipal Arbitrations Act Ontario Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1937 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/rso Bibliographic Citation
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----
Filed 11/18/05; pub.order 12/12/05 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- BANIS RESTAURANT DESIGN, INC., C048900 v. Plaintiff and
More informationPlaintiff INDE)( NO (Action No. 02)
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - -... - - )( """"""'"... SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT-NEW YORK STATE-NASSAU COUNTY PRESENT: JUSTICE ANTHONY L. PARGA JUSTICE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/26/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Petitioner, No. H031594 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV817837)
More informationSTATE OF MAINE. Cumberland. ss, Clerk's Office FEB RECEIVED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, SS. THOMAS M. BROOKS V. Plaintiff, JOHN R. LEMIEUX, ESQ., and DESMOND & RAND, P.A., as respondeat superior for JOHN R. LEMIEUX, ESQ., Defendants. STATE OF MAINE Cumberland. ss,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GARY E. GIUSTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2003 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Intervening Plaintiff, v No. 241714 Macomb Circuit Court MT. CLEMENS
More information-2- First Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief and Restitution SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEY S AT LAW TEL: (510)
0 0 attorneys fees and costs under, inter alia, Title of the California Code of Regulations, California Business and Professions Code 00, et seq., California Code of Civil Procedure 0., and various provisions
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 21, 2017 v No. 329907 Kent Circuit Court FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, LC No. 15-000926-AV Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
More informationFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because the law may have
More informationLAWATYOURFINGERTIPS BY JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. Filed 7/14/17 Safyari v. Fujitec America CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CASENOTE: COURT AFFIRMS MSJ FOR DEFENDANTS IN MATTER WHERE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED INJURIES DUE TO SUDDEN DROP OF ELEVATOR. WHILE THIS CASE IS UNPUB- LISHED IT CONTAINS AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION IN: (1) BURDEN
More informationSTATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ
ADAM ARISTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ9751139 Applicant, vs. FINDINGS AND ORDER NESTLE DREYERS ICE CREAM; SEDGWICK 14450 LONG
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 3/29/10; pub. order (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- IDA LANE et al., C060744 v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 11/19/10 CHP v. WCAB (Griffin) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
More informationTorts, Professional Liability and Expert Evidence. Craig Wallace, P.Eng. CE 402
Torts, Professional Liability and Expert Evidence Craig Wallace, P.Eng. CE 402 Essentials of Tort Law Tort Law Origins Historically dealt with "duty" owed to everyone you haven't agreed with in advance
More information