What is a Case Management Statement in Healthcare?

Useful Rulings on Case Management Statement in Healthcare

Rulings on Case Management Statement in Healthcare

1-25 of 189 results

LEISURE GLEN POST ACUTE CARE CENTER VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

Defendant contends that because Plaintiff failed to file a case management statement within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer on October 12, 2018, this action must be dismissed. The case management statement was filed on April 16, 2019, four days after the statutory deadline.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND

Similarly, Plaintiff previously argued that the failure to a case management statement was the fault of its attorney, and that it should be afforded Relief under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BURBANK HEALTHCARE AND VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Notably, the court’s reading that the filing of a case management statement is triggered by the filing of an answer does not render the phrase “pursuant to CRC Rule 212” surplusage. There are still other provisions of Rule 3.725 that are applicable to the filing of a case management statement, including the joint filing of such a statement and the use of mandatory Case Management Statement (form CM-110). (CRC Rule 3.725(b), (c).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUGAR VS. CAREHOUSE HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC

Additionally, Defendants’ Answer raised the affirmative defense of arbitration (see ROA No. 21) and their case management statement asserts, multiple times, that this matter is subject to binding arbitration (see ROA No. 30). The court finds that Defendants have not waived their right to arbitrate. An exception to the general rule that only a party to an arbitration agreement may enforce it is the agency exception. (Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 613.)

  • Hearing

BURBANK HEALTHCARE AND VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

It argues that the phrase “notwithstanding any other requirement of law,” demonstrates that the contrary provision regarding the trigger for a case management statement in Rule 3.725(a) is inapplicable. Rather, the requirement for a case management statement under section 1428(b) is triggered by the filing of an answer.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YORK HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Plaintiff filed a case management statement on May 16, 2017.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COMPASS HEALTH, INC. V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

In fact, the only reference to dismissal in the statute concerns a licensee’s failure to file a case management statement. The statute provides for dismissal where the licensee fails to file a case management statement within six months after the defendant files an answer. “Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

PACIFIC PALMS HEALTHCARE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

Plaintiff essentially argues that a case management statement can only be required where a case management conference is pending. The Court disagrees. The statute requiring that a case management statement be filed within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer also states that it is creating this requirement “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PACIFIC PALMS HEALTHCARE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

Plaintiff essentially argues that a case management statement can only be required where a case management conference is pending. The Court disagrees. The statute requiring that a case management statement be filed within six months of the filing of Defendant’s answer also states that it is creating this requirement “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THOMAS KNOWLES BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST VS. WINDSOR EL CAMINO CARE CENTER LLC

Citing to a case management statement, they contend that although Beach Cowdrey Jenkins LLP is scheduled to appear at both trials, different attorneys within the firm are scheduled to try the case. Plaintiffs argue they will be prejudiced by a continuance because they have already subpoenaed over 30 witnesses to appear at trial and because Plaintiffs are eager to have their day in court after three years of litigation. (Dudensing Decl. ¶9.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RIDGILL JOHNSON PROPERTIES INC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Nor does the court’s reading that the filing of a case management statement is triggered by the filing of an answer render the phrase “pursuant to CRC Rule 212” surplusage. There are other provisions of California Rules of Court, Rules 3.720 through 3.730 that are applicable to the filing of a case management statement. These include the joint filing of such a statement and the use of mandatory Case Management Statement (form CM-110). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.725, subds. (b), (c).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID ROSS INC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Nor does the court’s reading that the filing of a case management statement is triggered by the filing of an answer render the phrase “pursuant to CRC Rule 212” surplusage. There are other provisions of California Rules of Court, Rules 3.720 through 3.730 that are applicable to the filing of a case management statement. These include the joint filing of such a statement and the use of mandatory Case Management Statement (form CM-110). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.725, subds. (b), (c).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND

It argues that the phrase “notwithstanding any other requirement of law,” demonstrates that the contrary provision regarding the trigger for a case management statement in Rule 3.725(a) is inapplicable. Rather, the requirement for a case management statement under section 1428(b) is triggered by the filing of an answer.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIEHL VS. MID VALLEY MEDICAL

A Cross-Complaint was filed by Simi Valley Hospital Health Care Services on 1/16/20, and the time for filing proof of service/default has not expired. Plaintiff is required to file a Case Management Statement 15 days before the next hearing. At the continued hearing, the court will inquire as to the complaint's POS/default re defendants: Gains Properties, LLC, Adventist Health, and Adventist Health. Notice to be provided by Simi Valley Hospital Health Care Services.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Genalin Riley

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

DIEHL VS. MID VALLEY MEDICAL

A Cross-Complaint was filed by Simi Valley Hospital Health Care Services on 1/16/20, and the time for filing proof of service/default has not expired. Plaintiff is required to file a Case Management Statement 15 days before the next hearing. At the continued hearing, the court will inquire as to the complaint's POS/default re defendants: Gains Properties, LLC, Adventist Health, and Adventist Health. Notice to be provided by Simi Valley Hospital Health Care Services.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Genalin Riley

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

HOLDEN VS LOS ROBLES CARE CENTER

Defendant Samuel Eubanks has been dismissed from both cases, and Los Robles Care Center is the only remaining defendant. Based on the court filings, there has been little to no activity in either case since 2012. Parties have not provided any information about the results of the CRC 3.724 conference under Item 19b of the Case Management Statement. - JTD if cases can be consolidated. If consolidated, will need to continue Mandatory Appearance Case Management to a date after the consolidation.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

CASA BONITA HOSPITAL INC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Plaintiff bases this argument on the fact that CRC 3.725, which is one of the rules that replaced former Rule 212 specifies that the case management statement is due prior to the conference: “No later than 15 calendar days before the date set for the case management conference or review, each party must file a case management statement and serve it on all other parties in the case.” Plaintiff's argument is that a case management statement must be filed only where a case management conference has been set.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ESTELLE HOLDEN VS. LOS ROBLES CARE CENTER INC

Defendant Samuel Eubanks has been dismissed from both cases, and Los Robles Care Center is the only remaining defendant. Based on the court filings, there has been little to no activity in either case since 2012. Parties have not provided any information about the results of the CRC 3.724 conference under Item 19b of the Case Management Statement. - JTD if cases can be consolidated. If consolidated, will need to continue Mandatory Appearance Case Management to a date after the consolidation.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that under court rules, it is not required to file a case management statement mandated by Health & Saf. Code § 1428(b).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that under court rules, it is not required to file a case management statement mandated by Health & Saf. Code § 1428(b).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHARON STANLEY VS. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 11.055 This matter is continued to allow the Request for Dismissal as to defendants UC Davis Medical Center and UCD Home Care Services to be filed as stated in plaintiff's Case Management Statement. Absent a request to appear and be heard for any matter on the Case Management Calendar, all tentative rulings shall become the final ruling of the court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DICKS V. OAKMONT MARINER POINT LLC

Notably, plaintiff estimated in her case management statement that a jury trial would take 15 days, and defendants estimated 7 to 9 days. Additionally, based on the Laveglian Declaration, the court finds plaintiff has adequately established her inability to pay the arbitration cost up-front. While defendants argue the court should determine whether plaintiff’s attorney can cover the cost, they cite no authority for doing so.

  • Hearing

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More than a year later, Plaintiff has not filed a case management statement as required by Health & Saf. Code § 1428(b). Pursuant to Section 1428(b), “the court shall dismiss the appeal upon motion of the department if the case management statement is not filed by the licensee within the period specified.” (Emphasis added.) Defendant now moves to dismiss this action under Section 1428(b), arguing that Plaintiff failed to timely file the required case management statement. (Motion p. 2.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

13333 FENTON AVENUE LLC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that under court rules, it is not required to file a case management statement mandated by Health & Saf. Code § 1428(b).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHARON STANLEY VS. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

Failure to file a Case Management Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. Failure to comply with CMP rules may result in sanctions (included, but not limited to, dismissal of the action) under Local Rule 11.12 (CMP) Pursuant to Local Rule 11.15 (CMP), an Attorney's Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.