California Legal Brief

The Rule of Sobalvarro is that a hospital's negligence in failing to offer a disabled female patient the choice of being cared for by a female nurse for intimate care can be a substantial factor causing emotional distress and other harm, under circumstances where the patient is paralyzed, incontinent, requires daily intimate care, and receives such care from a male caregiver contrary to her preferences and the Patient's Bill of Rights.

The Rule of Nichols v. Alghannam is that treating a patient without valid hospital staff privileges constitutes "professional negligence" subject to the 3-year medical malpractice statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, under circumstances where the physician provided pain management services within the scope of his license but allegedly violated hospital privilege requirements.

The Rule of Haun v. Pagano is that a successful petitioner may recover attorney's fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) for prosecution of a financial elder abuse claim even when those fees are inextricably intertwined with defending against a competing elder abuse claim, under the circumstances where the petitioner is seeking fees as a prevailing plaintiff under the unilateral fee-shifting provision rather than as a prevailing defendant under a bilateral fee provision.

The Rule of Nichols v. Alghannam is that the MICRA statute of limitations (Code Civ.

The Rule of Halperin v. Halperin is that a plaintiff cannot maintain a civil tort claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) when she has an adequate remedy available in probate, under circumstances where the plaintiff has standing in probate and the ability to seek relief based on the same factual allegations underlying the tort claim.

The Rule of Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. is that a costs judgment entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable as a final judgment when the appellant seeks to challenge underlying orders rather than the costs determination itself, under circumstances where allowing the appeal would constitute impermissible back-door review of nonappealable orders.

The Rule of Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove, LLC is that an arbitration agreement clause stating "an arbitrator will decide any question about whether a claim or dispute must be arbitrated" does not clearly and unmistakably delegate threshold arbitrability issues (including unconscionability and enforceability) to the arbitrator, under circumstances where the language is silent as to interpretation and enforceability issues and lacks specificity about applicable arbitration rules.