What is loss of consortium?

Useful Resources for Loss of Consortium

Rulings on Loss of Consortium

1601-1625 of 1699 results

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN J KLEINHANS ET AL VS JUSHI USA

Plaintiff Mary Kleinhans only sues for damages relating to loss of consortium, care, comfort, and society; and for compensation for her time and costs of primary care to her sick husband. (See Complaint ¶27, subd. n.) Thus, because the court cannot grant or deny a motion based on issues not framed by the pleadings, summary adjudication on this issue is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED. The court will hear from the parties at the hearing as to a mutually agreeable date for trial.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2019

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SONYA MERIDETH VS PARVIN JAVAHERI ET AL

App. 4th 471, 486-488.DISCUSSIONPlaintiff Jaime Aymerich requests leave to amend his complaint to add his wife Carolina Aymerich as a plaintiff and a cause of action for loss of consortium.Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations has not lapsed and defendant was given the opportunity to depose plaintiff regarding the proposed loss of consortium claim.Plaintiff complied with CRC Rule 3.1324.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2018

FELICIANO COTA ET AL VS AMERICAN WRECKING INC ET AL

(“Advanced”), 1935 Via Arado (“1935”), Agron, Inc. as Doe 1 (“Agron”), and Anton Schiff as Doe 2 (“Schiff”) for negligence, premises liability, products liability, and loss of consortium. Following a demurrer by American, the Court sustained its demurrer without leave to amend as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRANDON HYATT, ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Hyatt’s original complaint asserted a cause of action for medical negligence, and his wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium. In July, 2018, the Court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) containing a cause of action against all defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and containing a prayer for punitive damages associated with the cause of action. The Court granted both requests as to Dr. Park.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BLANCA IBARRA VS CITY OF LA MIRADA ET AL

., and Keyes Automotive Group for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium based on an incident that occurred on May 24, 2016. Plaintiffs alleges that Mkrtchyan was the driver and that defendant Keyes European, LLC was the owner of the Mercedes E400. Trial is set for April 23, 2019.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DARRYL SELLERS ET AL VS PROMISE HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA INC

.); (2) Willful Misconduct; (3) Professional Negligence; and (4) Loss of Consortium Plaintiffs allege the following facts (and conclusions) against Defendants in their SAC: · The California Department of Public Health between 2007 and 2015 reported 4 complaints against Promise Hospital, 17 self-reported incidents, 17 survey deficiencies, and one state enforcement action. (SAC, ¶ 23.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GENEVIEVE URIBE ET AL VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE ETC ET AL

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts two causes of action, the first for medical negligence against defendant medical providers and the second for loss of consortium. The parties agree that the second cause of action is derivative of the first cause of action and that if the first cause of action is found to have no merit, the second cause of action fails as well. With these allegations as background, defendants Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, and Dr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2013

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND VS. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA

Plaintiff argues the "derivative injury rule" only applies where an employee's family members try to sue an employer for "claims deemed collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury," such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress. (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at 997-999.) Plaintiff contends the rule does not bar all third party civil claims against an employer. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2015

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IGNACIO DOMINGUEZ V. MIKE OWEN FABRICATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. With respect to Plaintiffs’ negligence and premises liability claims, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants violated various regulatory provisions, including California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 1670, 1710 (l), and 1724, and Labor Code sections 3706, 3708, and 6400. (Compl., pp. 4- 5.) J.W.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

BLANCA IBARRA VS CITY OF LA MIRADA ET AL

., and Keyes Automotive Group for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium based on an incident that occurred on May 24, 2016. Plaintiffs alleges that Mkrtchyan was the driver and that defendant Keyes European, LLC was the owner of the Mercedes E400. Trial is set for April 23, 2019.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

AKOP TOROSIAN ET AL VS ARUTYUN FITILCHYAN ET AL

Plaintiffs’ spouses, plaintiffs Marina Fermanyan and Elda Madatyan, bring a cause of action for loss of consortium against all defendants. ANALYSIS: Motion to Strike—Anti SLAPP CCP sec. 425.16 provides: “(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2019

JOSE MIRELES VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Plaintiffs complaint alleges six causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability – failure to warn; (3) strict liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium. On November 20, 2019, Lyondell filed a demurrer with a motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

FLORA RECINOS ANDREWS ET AL VS SOFIA KARASIK ET AL

BACKGROUND On February 23, 2016, plaintiffs Flora Recinos Andrews, an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Maria Recinos Lagos, and Derrick Andrews filed a complaint against Sofia Karasik and Natalie Karasik, as individuals and as trustees of the Karasik Living Trust, Dated September 2, 1988 and Karasik Construction Co. for (1) premises liability, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance, and (4) loss of consortium.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2018

JOHNSON VS. JOHN MUIR

Of note, the actual holding in Meighan, which was a legal malpractice action, was that the attorney for the husband had a duty to inform his non-client, the wife, about her potential claim for loss of consortium. The court therefore reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the lawyer.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JOANNE LICHTMAN, ET AL. VS ABB INC, ET AL.

Loss of Consortium Intentional Misrepresentation FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Joanne Lichtman, alleges that on September 4, 2011, she was driving a vehicle at the intersection of Broadway and Glendale Avenue in the City of Glendale when she was broadsided in the middle of the intersection by a vehicle being driven by Raymond Kachakian, resulting in injuries to plaintiff Lichtman and her husband plaintiff Douglas Evans, and their 15–year-old son, plaintiff Samuel Evans, who were passengers in her vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

JAY BLAKEMORE, ET AL. VS BERENDO GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

In Molien, Plaintiff filed an action against a hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium, alleging that his wife was negligently and erroneously diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. (Id. at 919.) Plaintiff’s cause of action for NIED alleges that the hospital knew or should have known that an erroneous diagnosis for Plaintiff’s wife would cause emotional distress and marital discord. (Id. at 920.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JAY BOOTH ET AL VS BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION ET AL

The mother brought an action against the hospital and the physicians for medical negligence, the mother’s husband alleged a cause of action for loss of consortium, and their children, the appellants, alleged a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id.) The appellants contended that they stated a cause of action for NIED based on the defendants' post-operative failure to respond to their mother's steadily worsening condition despite their pleas for medical intervention.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

JOSE VAZQUEZ , ET AL. VS ALMA HERNANDEZ , ET AL.

Procedural History On November 25, 2018, Plaintiffs Jose Vazquez and Juana Vallejo filed an unverified complaint against Defendant Hernandez and Atlantic Richfield Company for negligence; premises liability; negligent hiring, training, and/or retention; direct employer negligence; loss of consortium; various Labor Code claims; unfair business practices; disability discrimination; retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; failure to provide reasonable accommodations; failure

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ZUBE VS. LEONARD'S MARKET

Plaintiff Charlene Zube makes a loss of consortium claim only against all defendants based solely on the injuries and damages suffered by her husband, Mr. Zube. (UMF No.2.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Leonard's Market GP, Siena Village Markets, LLC (hereinafter "Siena Village"), and Northwest Supermarket Hoidings, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

  « first    1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.