October 2024 Caselaw Update

We write to provide you with a summary of cases relevant to employers and healthcare providers from October 2024. These are from the 9th Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and Courts of Appeals. You can see our videos discussing these cases on our Carlson & Jayakumar YouTube channel.

Regulations on Healthcare

USA v. California Stem Cell Treatment Center—The 9th Circuit found a cocktail of patient cells was a regulated drug, not a surgical procedure, which would be unregulated by the FDA.

Healthcare Fraud and Kickbacks

USA v. Solakyan—A workers’ comp-based healthcare fraud and kickback-scheme conviction was upheld. The defendant allegedly bribed doctors to send patients to his imaging center. The defendant argued, and the 9th Circuit disagreed, that the fraud claims could not attach to doctor-patient-relationship matters.

Managed Care

People ex rel. Elliott v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan—California sued Kaiser for not updating its provider directories. Kaiser brought an MSJ arguing abstention—seeking the court to defer to the regulating agencies. The trial court agreed, but was overturned—specifically on unfair competition and false-advertising theories.

Employment Disputes

Mooney v. Fife—Dr. Fife, a dermatologist, was sued by the practice’s COO who reported potentially fraudulent billing practices. The 9th Circuit overturned the practice’s MSJ victory, finding the employee could have enough evidence to show his termination was retaliatory.

Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California—A professor won on appeal, overturning Berkeley’s MSJ win, on claims the university disclosed disability and student-complaint information. But the school won on its FEHA failure-to-accommodate claims.

Arbitration News

Doe v. Second Street Corp. —More news from the Ending Forced Arbitration in Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. Here, arbitration was denied because the alleged acts happened both before and after the Act’s effective date.

Liu v. Miniso Depot—Same issue as Doe, above. Some harassment claims post-dated the Act’s effective date: Arbitration denied.

West v. Solar Mosaic—This involved a consumer arbitration agreement. A salesman got two elderly people, with dementia, in their 90’s, to sign a sales contract, which included an arbitration agreement. The motion to compel was denied for lack of capacity.

Heckman v. Live Nation—More consumer-arbitration news that could have employment relevance. The 9th Circuit ruled California’s state law on unconscionability is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Restraining Orders and Privacy

EG v. ML—A family-law case that could impact the new restraining order rules for employers. The court granted the restraining order on a party that had been “doxed” and was afraid for her safety based on what was posted. This beat back a 1st Amendment defense argued by the “doxer.”

In re M.T.—The Court of Appeals found the record of a name-change case for a transgender applicant should be entirely sealed for safety and privacy reasons.

COVID-19

Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen—A Covid case from the 9th Circuit. Montana had a statute prohibiting discrimination based on “vaccination status.” The CMS rule requiring vaccination for federally funded healthcare centers preempted the state law.

Administrative Law

Lucky Chances Inc. v. California Gambling Control Commission—An ALJ found no ground for discipline in an administrative proceeding. The commission rejected the finding and imposed a penalty. The court of appeals found it could not do so based on the statute in question.

Procedure and Discovery

Katayama v. Continental Investment Group—The responding party missed its 30-day discovery deadline to answer Requests for Admissions. The propounding party sought an order deeming everything admitted, gutting the responding party’s case. The trial court granted the order, but it was overturned by the Court of Appeal, who applied a more lenient response, finding the objection-only response may be in “substantial compliance.”

Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover—A party made two Section 998 settlement offers. The court said you cannot do multiple 998’s at the same time. But, saving the offering party, found one of the two was invalid, thus there was really only one offer in this case.

North American Title Company v. Superior Court—The California Supreme Court found if you discover grounds to disqualify a judge for bias under CCP 170.3, bring it “at the earliest practicable opportunity.” Don’t wait.

Vaghashia v. Vaghashia —The Court ruled you can’t both move to enforce a settlement agreement and then move to vacate it after you discover you don’t like the court’s approach to enforcement.

Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co.—The plaintiff sued her employer and supervisor—a Mr. Slap. He counterclaimed two years later for a letter the plaintiff submitted to HR. He claimed it was libel. She brought an Anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the letter was protected speech. The court slapped Mr. Slap with the Anti-SLAPP…

Let us know if you need more information on these or any other cases. And be sure to check out our video updates on our YouTube channel.

Best,

Keith. W. Carlson