The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, April 13, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Kim v. Toyota Motor Corporation, S232754 – Review Granted—April 13, 2016
The question presented is the following: Is evidence of industry custom and practice admissible in a strict products liability action?
Plaintiff’s pickup truck when he swerved to avoid another vehicle and suffered severe injuries. Plaintiffs alleged the accident occurred because the pickup lacked electronic stability control (ESC), also known as vehicle stability control (VSC), and that the absence of that device or system was a design defect. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, held in a published decision Kim v. Toyota Motor Corporation (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1366, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of industry custom and practice.
King v. CompPartners, Inc., S232197 – Review Granted—April 13, 2016
This case presents the following issues: (1) Is an injured worker’s claim for medical malpractice 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?
As part of a Workers’ Compensation utilization review, defendant physician determined a drug was unnecessary and decertified it. Plaintiff later experienced seizures and physical injury, allegedly due to the sudden cessation of the drug. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, held in a published decision King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 685, that: (1) the trial court erred in prohibiting plaintiffs from amending their complaint because their failure to warn claim was not subject to Workers’ Compensation exclusivity; (2) defendants owed plaintiff a duty of care because a doctor-patient relationship existed between the parties; (3) the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to plaintiffs existing complaint because the scope of the duty was uncertain due to the lack of details in plaintiff’s complaint.
Renwick v. Sutter Medical Foundation, S232289– Review Granted and Held—April 13, 2016
The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc., S211793, which presents the following issue: Does “neglect” within the meaning of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657) include a health care provider’s failure to refer an elderly patient to a specialist if the care occurred on an outpatient basis, or must an action for neglect under the Act allege that the defendant health care provider had a custodial relationship with the elderly patient?
The Court of Appeal, Third District, ruled in an unpublished opinion, Renwick v. Sutter Medical Foundation (2016) 2016 WL 128692, that plaintiff could not state a claim for elder abuse because: (1) plaintiff’s mother was not in defendant’s custody when she was injured; (2) the complaint failed to allege facts showing defendant was aware plaintiff’s mother was likely to become injured; (3) plaintiff could not amend the complaint because the one-year MICRA statute of limitations had passed.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
