Actions of note at the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference include:
- The court granted review in Lopez v. Ledesma, a case against two physician assistants and others, where a divided Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal published opinion applied a statutory $250,000 limit on non-economic damages that comes into play in “professional negligence” cases against “health care provider[s].” As relevant, the damage cap statute — a part of the 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) — says “professional negligence” does not include acts “in the rendering of professional services” that are not “within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed and which are not within any restriction imposed by the licensing agency.” The appellate court majority held, “If an otherwise qualified physician assumes the legal responsibility of supervising a physician assistant, that physician assistant practices within the ‘scope of services’ covered by the supervising physician’s license, even if the supervising physician violates his or her obligation to provide adequate supervision.” The Supreme Court has previously shown little interest in revisiting its earlier decision that upheld the damage cap’s constitutionality. An initiative to raise the amount of the cap is scheduled to appear on the November 2022 ballot. (See here and here.)
- The court denied review in Uber Technologies Pricing Cases, but Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar recorded a vote to grant. The First District, Division One, in a published opinion, upheld the dismissal of an unfair competition case filed against Uber by taxi companies and taxi medallion owners, which alleged illegally low prices. The appellate court applied a statutory exemption from the unfair competition law for services under the Public Utilities Commission’s jurisdiction, holding the exemption was effective even if the PUC hasn’t exercised its jurisdiction to set rates.
- After the Sixth District summarily denied a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in In re Morrison, directing the appellate court to consider whether “the Board of Parole Hearings . . . abuse[d] its discretion in finding petitioner not suitable for parole. (See In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192; In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181; Pen. Code, § 3055.)”
- There were six criminal case grant-and-holds: four more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here) (one of the four was an exhaustion petition (see discussion of In re Virden here)); one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); and one more holding for In re Gadlin (see here).
- The court granted-and-transferred in four cases, directing reconsideration in light of last month’s decision in People v. Frahs. It also dismissed review in a whopping 37 cases that had been grant-and-holds for Frahs.
- The court transferred two post-Proposition 66 capital habeas corpus petitions to superior courts. (See here, here, and here.)