Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
January 4, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes back attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
KEEPING CURRENT, January 4, 2000
2 NEW APPELLATE CASES
CASES OF PARTICULAR INTEREST:
A must reading for plaintiff's attorneys is the California Supreme Court decision reviewing the situations in which a job related injury is not subject to the exclusivity of remedy provisions of Workers' Compensation.
VACANTI v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
Case No. S071945
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WORKERS COMPENSATION-EXCLUSIVITY OF WORKERS COMPENSATION REMEDY FOR ACTS AFFECTING INSURERS LIEN RIGHTS
A group of medical providers sued a group of workers' compensation insurers, alleging RICO, Cartwright Act and other related claims. In their novel complaint, the medical providers allege the insurers conspired to put them out of business by intentionally mishandling their lien claims before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and seek only to recover the damage to their businesses. The defendants' demurrer was sustained, on the ground that since the gravamen of the complaints is delay or refusal to pay medical liens the exclusive jurisdiction is with the WCAB. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
HELD:Pursuant to State Constitutional authority the Legislature enacted the Workers' Compensation Act a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation given to California employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. This was made the exclusive remedy for job related injuries. Medical providers that treat employee injuries covered by the WCA may file a lien claim for the costs of their services directly with the WCAB. Any such provider is a party in interest to the WCAB proceeding and receives full due process rights, including an opportunity to be heard. In some exceptional circumstances the employer is not free from liability at law for his intentional acts even if the resulting injuries to his employees are compensable under workers' compensation. Insurer actions closely connected to the payment of benefits fall within the scope of the exclusive remedy provisions. Vacanti's abuse of process and fraud claims are subject to exclusivity. Because the wrongful acts and motives that give rise to the Cartwright Act - restraint of trade claim fall outside the compensation bargain, it is not subject to workers' compensation exclusivity. The concerted effort by insurers to interject themselves into lien claims they did not insure is not a normal part of the claims process. Similarly, the pattern of racketeering activity necessary to establish a RICO enterprise always falls outside the scope of the compensation bargain. The claims for tortious interference with business relations and violations of the UCL encompass a wide range of misconduct due, in part, to the breadth of these causes of action and some haziness in the pleadings. These claims are barred to the extent they focus on the individual misdeeds of each defendant, but are not precluded to the extent they are predicated on the conspiratorial misconduct of defendants Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PEOPLE v. MAZURETTE
Case No. S081661
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL-NO APPEAL FROM A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE SUPPRESSION MOTION IS DENIED AND A DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IS MADE
After her motion to suppress was denied Mazurette pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. Entry of judgment was deferred and she entered a drug diversion program. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, on the ground that there is no right to appeal from an order denying a motion to suppress evidence if the defendant has pled guilty or no contest and been granted deferred entry of judgment.
HELD:The right of appeal is statutory and that a judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute. In the case of a plea of nolo contendere to a felony the Penal Code provides that no appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except under certain conditions. A defendant who enters such a plea following an adverse decision on a motion to suppress based on a claim of an illegal search and/or seizure is allowed to seek further review. In the situation in which the court grants deferred entry of judgment on a plea of guilty, if the defendant successfully completes the assigned program, the criminal charge or charges shall be dismissed, in which case no judgment of conviction will be entered into the record. The conclusion that a defendant cannot appeal following a deferred entry of judgment is consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provisions. Affirmed..
*Change in law, interesting case, or just watch out!
For the complete California cases, visitors can click on here to go to
STATE DAILY OPINIONS
For the complete 9th Circuit cases, visitors can click on here to go to
FEDERAL RESOURCES
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page