Case Summaries

Elder Law

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[10/20] NY Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing a trial court order enjoining defendants from violating an assisted living facilities' visitor access guidelines, judgment is affirmed where the guidelines impermissibly restrict advocate access to facility residents, and violate 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH's interpretation of that regulation.

[09/21] In re: Lemington Home for the Aged
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds that the business judgment rule and the doctrine of in pari delicto bar plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty, judgment is reversed where there are genuine disputes of material facts.

[08/23] Estate of Dito
In a probate petition alleging financial elder abuse, judgment of the trial court dismissing complaint without leave to amend on the ground that it is barred by res judicata is reversed as modified, where the petition is not barred as a matter of law on the basis of an earlier dispute because the issues as presented differ .

[08/12] Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley
In a tort and injury action alleging elder abuse, willful misconduct, and wrongful death, judgment of the trial court dismissing action is affirmed because plaintiffs had not alleged conduct that qualified as elder abuse, as distinguished from negligence, and where the willful misconduct and wrongful death claims were untimely.

[06/28] Hartley v. Superior Court (Monex Deposit Co.)
In a petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's order compelling petitioner to arbitrate her claims against real parties in interest, order is vacated where trial court erred by finding the parties' arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably gives the arbitrator the exclusive authority to decide the gateway issue of unconscionability, or arbitrability.

[06/23] Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska
In a dispute involving application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 203(r)(2)(A), judgment of the district court finding that defendants are subject to the FLSA overtime provisions is reversed, where defendants' therapeutic homes are are not covered by the FLSA because they are not institutions primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, mentally ill or defective, residing on the premises of such institutions.

[04/28] Bell v. Mason
In a dispute arising from the sale of real property where plaintiff alleges that she suffers from a mental retardation through which the defendants took advantage in gaining her trust and inducing her to enter into a transaction which deprived her of her home, judgment of the trial court is reversed where evidentiary ruling precluding a defense expert witness from testifying constituted prejudicial error because the mere fact that expert witness had not personally examined plaintiff did not preclude him from testifying as to her mental capacity after reviewing her medical records and observing several hours of a videotape of her deposition.

[04/27] Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvment and Service Association, Inc.
In a dispute involving the scope of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) prohibition against familial status discrimination, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part because a residential community that has continuously operated as a retirement community for persons age 55 or older can qualify for the housing for older persons exemption from the prohibition on familial status discrimination if it establishes that it satisfied the exemption’s three criteria at the time of the alleged violation, even if the community enforced age restrictions when it first achieved compliance with the exemption’s age verification requirement.

[02/25] Park Village v. Mortimer Howard Trust
In a landlord-tenant dispute involving an injunction against the eviction of elderly, low-income tenants who wished to pay a portion of their rent using federally-funded enhanced vouchers, injunction is affirmed in part because the individual plaintiffs have a statutory right to remain in the complex, but reversed and remand in part where plaintiffs failed to identify any evidence or statutory authority upon which to base a mandatory injunction compelling defendants to enter into contracts with local housing authority, so long as defendants are willing to forgo payment of that portion of the rent covered by the enhanced vouchers.

[02/25] California School Bds. Association v. Brown
In a writ petition seeking declaration of line-item veto by Governor of legislative appropriation of reimbursement funding for state mandate as void, petition is denied because Governor was constitutionally permitted to exercise his veto power since the legislature does not have exclusive discretion over appropriation of mandate reimbursement.

More...

Probate Trusts

More...

Health Law

[01/30] Bernard v. City of Oakland
In a case in which retired firefighters or their surviving spouses contended that the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employee Medical Hospital Care Act, the trial court's denial of mandamus relief and dismissal of the actions are affirmed, where: 1) it was appropriate to defer to the health care plan administrator's interpretation of the statutory language in dispute; 2) there was no error in allowing a witness to testify as an expert, and even if there was error, it was harmless; and 3) there was no merit to an assertion that a contracting agency that elects to make increasing contributions under Government code section 22892(c) must also comply with the minimum contribution provisions of 22892(b).

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[01/27] People v. Hughes
In a prosecution for several offenses involving marijuana, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, where it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to impose a condition of probation that prohibited the defendant from possessing marijuana, even for medical use.

[01/25] Walker v. Medtronic Inc.
In a suit alleging common-law tort claims arising out of the alleged failure of a medical device to operate in accordance with the terms of its premarket approval, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where the device was undisputedly designed, manufactured, and distributed in compliance with its FDA premarket approval, and the plaintiff's common-law claims exceeded or differed from, rather than paralleled, federal requirements, so that each of her specific claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty was preempted by the federal Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

[01/20] People v. Hartshorn
On appeal from an order granting a petition to extend the appellant's commitment to Porterville Developmental Center pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 following a jury finding that he is a "mentally retarded person, is a danger to himself or others, and has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior because of his mental retardation," the court dismissed the appeal as technically moot but exercised its discretion to hold that due process requires section 6500's phrase "danger to himself . . . or others" be construed as necessitating conduct presenting the likelihood of serious physical injury.

[01/20] National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In a challenge to a rule issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to claims for service-connected disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder, a petition to review the final rule is denied where, under a Chevron analysis: 1) no existing statute or regulation specifically addresses the issue raised in the rule so as to create a conflict or contradiction; 2) the court could not say that the rationale behind the rule is without a logical basis, or is otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

[01/19] People v. Gram
In a case concerning the appropriate procedure for challenging the administrative placement of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) who is recommitted to a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rather than to Napa State Hospital, orders recommitting the MDO to California State Prison at Sacramento (CSP-Sacramento) are affirmed and an order directing that the MDO be housed in that prison's psychiatric services unit is vacated, where: 1) the trial court was statutorily compelled to order that the MDO be recommitted to CSP-Sacramento, and thus his constitutional challenge to Welfare and Institutions Code section 7301 is not cognizable on appeal; and 2) although the MDO made out a colorable claim that his continued confinement at CSP-Sacramento violated his liberty interest in safety and freedom from restraint under the Fourteenth Amendment, he was required to pursue such a claim in a petition for habeas corpus.

[01/13] US v. Rehlander
Conviction and sentencing of defendants for possessing firearms after having been "committed to a mental institution," 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(4), are reversed where a Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 34-B section 3863 hospitalization does not qualify as a "commitment" for federal purposes in light of District of Columbia v. Heller.

[01/13] Hawkins v. NH Dept of Health
In an appeal from a judgment arising from the district court's denial of plaintiffs' post-Consent Decree motions, judgment is affirmed where the district court: 1) correctly required the plaintiffs to file a motion for contempt to enforce the Decree; 2) did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion for contempt; 3) did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing; and 4) correctly held the plaintiffs to a clear and convincing burden of proof on its motion to modify or extend the Decree.

[01/12] Hydrick v. Hunter
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendants qualified immunity against plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims for money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, judgment is partially reversed where the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims for money damages because the conclusory allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint are insufficient to establish defendants’ individual liability for such damages.

[01/12] Walker v. Sonora Regional Med. Center
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs' action for medical and corporate negligence, judgment is affirmed where defendant's failure to notify plaintiff that she tested positive as a carrier of cystic fibrosis was not negligent since its sole duty was to transmit the laboratory results to plaintiff's doctor whose responsibility it was to inform and counsel his patient on the results.

More...