Appellant sought review of judgments from the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), dismissing respondent health care providers after sustaining without leave to amend demurrers to causes of action for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, concealment, interference with a physician-patient relationship, wrongful disclosure of confidential medical information, and violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
Appellant was a patient treated by respondent physician at a facility owned and operated by respondent health care providers. Appellant brought an action against respondent physician alleging negligence, and against respondent physician, respondent health care providers, and respondents' insurer, alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with the physician-patient relationship, concealment, wrongful disclosure of confidential medical information, and violation of the constitutional right to privacy. The trial Bereavement leave California sustained demurrers without leave to amend to all causes of action , except the negligence claim. Appellant sought review by writ of mandate concerning respondent physician and appellate review of the judgment dismissing the remaining respondents. The court granted a writ of mandate and reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrers to the wrongful disclosure and privacy claims, holding they were not barred by the litigation privilege of Cal. Civ. Code § 47(2 ). The court affirmed the judgment sustaining the demurrers to the other causes of action, holding they were barred by the litigation privilege. The court affirmed the judgments as to respondents alleged to have been liable for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, concealment, interference with a physician-patient relationship, holding the claims were barred by the litigation privilege. The court reversed the judgment as to the claims for wrongfully disclosing confidential medical information and violating the right to privacy because these claims were not barred. Plaintiff employee filed a proposed class action against defendant employer for unpaid wages and unfair business practices. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, granted the employer's motion to compel arbitration under the employment agreement and dismissed the class action claims. The employee appealed. The trial court ruled that a class action waiver did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable because the employee did not prove that there were predictably small amounts of damages. The reviewing court assumed for the purposes of argument that the test developed in the consumer context applied and that the class action waivers would be substantively unconscionable if the dispute involved a predictably small amount of damages per class member. The court agreed with the trial court that the employee did not establish the required predictably small amounts. The complaint alleged that the employer had engaged in a scheme to defraud its employees out of overtime compensation and sought damages under Lab. Code, § 558, and Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200. The employee presented no evidence in the trial court that the potential damages and penalties payable to class members would be predictably small. The employee could not rely for the first time on appeal on statistics from the United States Department of Labor. Moreover, there was no apparent correlation between the cited federal back wage figures and the allegations in the complaint. The court affirmed the order compelling arbitration and dismissing the class action claims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories |