Court Of Appeal Finds Physician Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Medical Peer Review Matter
A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges. His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of GMSR’s client in medical malpractice case.
Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (unpublished, 3rd Civ. C074716): Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against GMSR’s client, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, and several individual physicians. She sought to hold Sutter Health liable for negligent hiring or retention of one of the
Court of Appeal affirms defense summary judgment in medical malpractice case
Rebecca Sperber v. The Regents of the University of California (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8117 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. GMSR’s clients, the Regents and several of its doctors, obtained summary judgment in a medical negligence action with expert
Court of Appeal slashes $4.7 million medical malpractice judgment against GMSR’s hospital client
Camargo v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5946 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. A jury found that in the care of a patient who was suffering from flesh-eating bacteria and later died, JFK Memorial
Court of Appeal holds that in indemnity action settlements must be allocated to economic loss in same ratio as overall recovery
Doctors Company v. Sherman Oaks Hospital (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 7816 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client, a hospital, and three doctors all settled with the claimants. One doctor obtained a good faith settlement determination. The two remaining
Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of GMSR’s client
Wachtel v. Regents, et al. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8410 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of GMSR’s client, The Regents of the University of California, and multiple other medical defendants
GMSR successfully upholds summary judgment in favor of its client in a medical malpractice action
Shugart v. The Regents of the University of California (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 499 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight) [published]. Plaintiff was treated for urinary incontinence and related conditions, first by a Bakersfield physician and, when that treatment proved unsuccessful, by physicians
Court affirms nonsuit In favor of GMSR’s client in medical malpractice case
Frisch v. Roberts, et al. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4194 (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District) [unpublished]. The Sixth District Court of Appeal has affirmed judgment in favor of defendants, including GMSR’s clients, Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The plaintiff alleged
Court of Appeal holds that hospitals do not owe patients a duty to obtain informed consent
Do v. San Leandro Hospital (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2264 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer in favor of GMSR’s client, San Leandro Hospital. Plaintiff asserted claims against
Court strikes multimillion economic award against hospital based on plaintiff’s settlement with doctor
Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 971 / 2011 Cal.App. LEXIS 335 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [partially published]. Plaintiff sued a pediatrician and a hospital, GMSR’s client, for injuries arising out of untreated jaundice. Plaintiff settled with the
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.