Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey and King v. CompPartners, Inc., which were both argued on the late-May calendar. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here and here.) That will be two more opinions down, six left to go by next Thursday.
Morgan Hill raises the issue whether the electorate can use the referendum process to challenge a municipality’s zoning designation for an area, which was changed to conform to the municipality’s amended general plan, when the result of the referendum — if successful — would leave intact the existing zoning designation that does not conform to the amended general plan. First District, Division One, Court of Appeal Justice Sandra Margulies is the pro tem.
The questions in King are: (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? Sixth District Justice Adrienne Grover is the pro tem.
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
