§Why CasetextPricing

KING v. COMPPARTNERS

Respondents’ Petition for Review

22 Cited authorities

  1. McCall v. Pacificare of California, Inc.

    25 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 626 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 827 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are threatened with physical harm by a patient

  3. Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund

    24 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 171 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 Medical Center

    236 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 50 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Nolte, the plaintiff received non-emergency treatment from a physician whose office was located in a medical building owned by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars).

  5. State Compen. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Compen. Appeals Bd.

    44 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 47 times
    Finding that utilization review to assess employees' requests for medical treatment is required by California's workers' compensation program

  6. Cellphone Fee Termination Cases

    193 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 34 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."

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

    16 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 48 times   11 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

  8. Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.

    46 Cal.4th 272 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 22 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

  9. Keene v. Wiggins

    69 Cal.App.3d 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 67 times
    Holding no physician-patient relationship created where physician examined plaintiff for purpose of rating the plaintiff's injury for employer's insurance carrier in workers' compensation proceeding

  10. Mero v. Sadoff

    31 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 32 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.

  11. Section 3600 - Generally

    Cal. Lab. Code § 3600   Cited 888 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Noting that liability for compensation under California's Workers’ Compensation Act is "in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person "

  12. Section 4610.5 - Resolution of utilization review disputes on or after July 1, 2013

    Cal. Lab. Code § 4610.5   Cited 38 times
    Prohibiting employer from engaging in any action that would delay IMR and authorizing fine of up to $5,000 per day for violation

  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 18 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   Cited 7 times

    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   Cited 3 times

    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   Cited 3 times

    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

  17. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)