October 12, 2012
The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, October 10, 2012. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, S204543—Review Granted, Issues Limited—October 10, 2012
The question presented is “whether the defendant franchisor is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that it is vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee.”
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six, held in a published decision, Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 385, that the defendant franchisor was not entitled to summary judgment because several of the terms of the franchise agreement and the testimony of the franchisee raised “reasonable inferences” supporting plaintiff’s claim that the franchisee was not an independent contractor.
Valdez v. W.C.A.B. (Warehouse Demo Services), S204387—Review Granted—October 10, 2012
This case presents the following question: In a proceeding to obtain worker’s compensation benefits, “[d]oes Labor Code section 4616.6 exclude from evidence reports of a treating physician obtained by an applicant outside of his or her employer’s Medical Provider Network?”
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, held in a published decision, Valdez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1, that the report was admissible and that neither Labor Code section 4616.6 nor the decision in Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1041 rendered the report inadmissible.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)