§Why CasetextPricing

KING v. COMPPARTNERS

Respondents’ Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. McCall v. Pacificare of California, Inc.

    25 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 508 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that various state law claims did not fall within Medicare's exclusive review provisions and therefore did not require administrative exhaustion

  2. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

    17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 759 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are threatened with physical harm by a patient

  3. Vacanti v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

    24 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 136 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is "the exclusive forum for pursuing a section 132a claim"

  4. Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr.

    236 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses

    B252606 2015-05-21 Justin NOLTE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. See 13 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Equity, § 105 et seq. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC499194) JOHNSON See 13 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Equity, § 105 et seq.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William

  5. Cellphone Fee Termination Cases

    193 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Noting the fact that cancellation fee was imposed involuntarily by defendant "confirm[ed] that at the time of contracting the provision was not understood or intended as providing only for a 'rational choice' of the customer."

  6. Snyder v. Michael's Stores, Inc.

    16 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 38 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding California's exclusive remedy provision did not bar claim for prenatal injury allegedly caused by mother's exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace

  7. Keene v. Wiggins

    69 Cal.App.3d 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 63 times
    Concluding that physician retained by employer to conduct an IME of an injured employee had a duty of care to prepare the report for the employer, not the employee

  8. State Comp. v. Workers' Comp

    44 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that utilization review to assess employees' requests for medical treatment is required by California's workers' compensation program

  9. Mero v. Sadoff

    31 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 28 times
    In Mero v. Sadoff, 31 Cal.App.4th 1466, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1995), the court held that a physician who was negligent in his examination of an employee, which he performed at the employer's request, had a duty to the employee "not to cause harm" during the examination.

  10. Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.

    206 P.3d 430 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. S150528. May 11, 2009. Appeal from the Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Div. Six, Nos. B190054 and B190655. William A. Herreras for Petitioner Dwight Smith. Ghitterman, Ghitterman Feld, Allan S. Ghitterman, Russell R. Ghitterman and Benjamin P. Feld for Peititoner David Amar. No appearance for Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Robert W. Daneri, Suzanne Ah-Tye, Don E. Clark and David M. Goi for Respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice, Mel Clayton

  11. Section 3600

    Cal. Lab. Code § 3600   Cited 533 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that, inter alia, workers' compensation liability may apply where "at the time of the injury" both the employer and the employee are subject to the workers' compensation provisions and where "at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment."

  12. Section 4610.5

    Cal. Lab. Code § 4610.5   Cited 2 times

    (a) This section applies to the following disputes: (1) Any dispute over a utilization review decision regarding treatment for an injury occurring on or after January 1, 2013. (2) Any dispute over a utilization review decision if the decision is communicated to the requesting physician on or after July 1, 2013, regardless of the date of injury. (3) Any dispute occurring on or after January 1, 2018, over medication prescribed pursuant to the drug formulary adopted pursuant to Section 5307.27. (b)

  13. Section 9792.9.1 - Utilization Review Standards-Timeframe, Procedures and Notice - On or After January 1, 2013

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 9792.9.1   Cited 2 times

    This section applies to any request for authorization of medical treatment, submitted under Article 5.5.1 of this Subchapter, for either: (1) an occupational injury or illness occurring on or after January 1, 2013; or (2) where the decision on the request is communicated to the requesting physician on or after July 1, 2013, regardless of the date of injury. (a) The request for authorization for a course of treatment as defined in section 9792.6.1(d) must be in written form set forth on the "Request

  14. Section 9792.6 - Utilization Review Standards-Definitions - For Utilization Review Decisions Issued Prior to July 1, 2013 for Injuries Occurring Prior to January 1, 2013

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 9792.6

    The following definitions apply to any request for authorization of medical treatment, made under Article 5.5.1 of this Subchapter, for an occupational injury or illness occurring prior to January 1, 2013 if the decision on the request is communicated to the requesting physician prior to July 1, 2013. (a) "ACOEM Practice Guidelines" means the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, Second Edition. (b) "Authorization" means assurance

  15. Section 9792.6.1 - Utilization Review Standards-Definitions - On or After January 1, 2013

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 9792.6.1

    The following definitions apply to any request for authorization of medical treatment, made under Article 5.5.1 of this Subchapter, for either: (1) an occupational injury or illness occurring on or after January 1, 2013; or (2) where the decision on the request for authorization of medical treatment is communicated to the requesting physician on or after July 1, 2013, regardless of the date of injury. (a) "Authorization" means assurance that appropriate reimbursement will be made for an approved

  16. Section 9792.9 - Utilization Review Standards-Timeframe, Procedures and Notice Content - For Injuries Occurring Prior to January 1, 2013, Where the Request for Authorization is Received Prior to July 1, 2013

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 9792.9

    This section applies to any request for authorization of medical treatment, submitted under Article 5.5.1 of this Subchapter, for an occupational injury or illness occurring prior to January 1, 2013 where the request for authorization is received prior to July 1, 2013. (a) The request for authorization for a course of treatment as defined in section 9792.6(e) must be in written form. (1) For purposes of this section, the written request for authorization shall be deemed to have been received by the