[UPDATED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 8, 2016]
What Are the Liability Limits of a Brand Name Manufacturer? After the Court of Appeal reversed to allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint after the demurrer was sustained, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: May the brand name manufacturer of a pharmaceutical drug that divested all ownership interest in the drug be held liable for injuries caused years later by another manufacturer’s generic version of that drug? T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., S233898 (opinion below D067839, 245 Cal.App.4th 589). Review was granted 6/8/16.
May an Injured Worker Bring a Separate Medical Malpractice Claim Against Workers’ Compensation Utilization Review Company? After the Court of Appeal sustained the demurrer, but reversed to allow leave to amend, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Is a claim by an injured worker for medical malpractice brought against a workers’ compensation utilization review company barred by workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy? (2) Does a workers’ compensation utilization review company that performs medical utilization reviews on behalf of employers owe a duty of care to an injured worker? (3) Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that plaintiffs should be given leave to amend their complaint in this case? King v. CompPartners, Inc., S232197 (opinion below E063527, 243 Cal.App.4th 685). Review was granted 4/13/16.
Is Order Partially Granting Writ of Administrative Mandate Appealable? After the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order on a petition for writ of administrative mandate, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Is a trial court order granting in part and denying in part a physician’s petition for writ of administrative mandate regarding a hospital’s disciplinary action and remanding the matter to the hospital for further administrative proceedings an appealable order? Dhillon v. John Muir Health, S224472, (case below A143195; dismissed on court’s own motion). Review was granted 4/8/15.
Is there a Right to a Jury Trial under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5?
The Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err by reviewing plaintiff’s right to a jury by writ of mandate rather than appeal? (See Nessbit v. Superior Court (1931) 214 Cal. 1.) (2) Is there a right to jury trial on a retaliation cause of action under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5? Shaw v. Superior Court, S221530 (opinion below B254958, formerly 229 Cal.App.4th 12). Review was granted 11/12/14.
What Privacy Interest Do Patients Have in Controlled Substance Prescription Data?
After the Court of Appeal found no violation of privacy rights, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Do a physician’s patients have a protected privacy interest in the controlled substance prescription data collected and submitted to the California Department of Justice under Health and Safety Code § 11165? (2) If so, is disclosure of such data to the Medical Board of California justified by a compelling state interest? Lewis v. Superior Court, S219811 (opinion below B252032, formerly 226 Cal.App.4th 933). Review was granted on 9/17/14.
What Is the Obligation of an HMO when it Delegates Emergency Reimbursements to an IPA that becomes Insolvent? After the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment below, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issues: (1) Does the delegation — by a health care service plan (HMO) to an independent physicians association (IPA), under Health and Safety Code §1371.4(e) — of the HMO’s responsibility to reimburse emergency medical service providers for emergency care provided to the HMO’s enrollees relieve the HMO of the ultimate obligation to pay for emergency medical care provided to its enrollees by non-contracting emergency medical service providers, if the IPA becomes insolvent and is unable to pay? (2) Does an HMO have a duty to emergency medical service providers to protect them from financial harm resulting from the insolvency of an IPA which is otherwise financially responsible for the emergency medical care provided to its enrollees? Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc., S218497 (opinion below B238867, and upon rehearing, formerly 225 Cal.App.4th 237). Review was granted 7/16/14. Update 8/3/16: Oral argument scheduled for 9/8/16. The briefs are here. Update 9/8/16: Cause argued and submitted.