Health Care Issues Pending In California Supreme Court
USE NOTE: The information in this bulletin, including the framing of the issue presented, is taken from the California Supreme Court’s official website. Citations to the court of appeal's opinion are for informational purposes only. The grant of review automatically vacates the opinion, which cannot be cited as precedent.
Balance billing. Does Cal. Health & Safety Code 1379 bar emergency room doctors who aren't in contract with a health care service plan from balance billing plan member patients for the balance of the doctor's fee not paid by the plan or its delegate? Prospect Medical Group, Inc. v. Northridge Emergency Med. Group, S142209, formerly at 136 Cal.App.4th 1155, review granted 5/24/06.
Knox-Keene. Does the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Act exempt approved providers under the Act from the limitations that Business & Professions Code §§ 665 and 2556 otherwise impose on business and financial relationships between dispensing opticians and optometrists or ophthalmologists? People v. Cole (Pearle), S121724, formerly at 113 Cal.App.4th 956, review granted 3/3/04.
Health care arbitration. Did a written arbitration agreement entered into at the time of a patient’s first treatment by a chiropractor, stating it would “bind the patient and the health care provider . . . who now or in the future treat[s] the patient,” apply to a second treatment for a different condition two years later? Reigelsperger v. Siller, S131664, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 1008, review granted 4/13/05.
Knox-Keene. Does the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Act exempt approved providers under the Act from the limitations that Business & Professions Code §§ 665 and 2556 otherwise impose on business and financial relationships between dispensing opticians and optometrists or ophthalmologists? People v. Cole (Pearle), S121724, formerly at 113 Cal.App.4th 956, review granted 3/3/04.
Health care arbitration. Did a written arbitration agreement entered into at the time of a patient’s first treatment by a chiropractor, stating it would “bind the patient and the health care provider . . . who now or in the future treat[s] the patient,” apply to a second treatment for a different condition two years later? Reigelsperger v. Siller, S131664, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 1008, review granted 4/13/05.
