Procedural Posture

[Saim Khan]

Petitioners, a health plan and others, sought mandate relief from an order of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied a motion to strike punitive damages allegations in a suit filed by real party in interest plan members alleging that the health plan had given physicians financial incentives to withhold medically necessary services, resulting in injury.

 

Overview: california at will employment termination letter

A physician initially determined that a diagnostic procedure was not medically necessary but later authorized it. The complaint alleged that the delay was unreasonable and that as a result of the delay, a cancer had not been timely detected. While the writ petition was pending, the plan members dismissed their punitive damages claims against two health care providers, leaving the punitive damages allegations pending against only the health plan. The court held that the procedural requirements described in Code Civ. Proc., § 425.13, subd. (a), did not apply to claims against health care service plans as defined in Health & Saf. Code, § 1345, subd. (f)(1), in light of the specific exclusion in both Civ. Code, § 3428, subd. (c), and Health & Saf. Code, § 1367.01, subd. (m). The Legislature intended § 425.13 to apply to claims against medical care providers, as opposed to other classes of defendants. Because the punitive damages claims against the health care providers had been dismissed, the court declined to review whether they should have been stricken; ordering the trial court to strike such allegations would be an idle act within the meaning of Civ. Code, § 3532.

Outcome

The court denied the petition.