We Have a Combined Total of Over 350 Trials Among Our 50+ Attorneys.

Learn More About Prominent Verdicts Below


Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 453

Affirmed dismissal by demurrer. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) conversion and conspiracy to commit conversion, (2) violation of fiduciary duty, (3) violation of privacy, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; alleging defendants secreted an angiogram in a conspiracy to help the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) defeat plaintiff’s claims of injury based upon an alleged bus accident. Court agreed that the labels used by Rosen were properly disregarded, and that complaint was properly dismissed as the facts alleged amounted to spoliation of evidence claims barred by California Supreme Court decisions.

PacifiCare of California v. Bright Medical Associates (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1451

Medical group’s good faith settlement affirmed. Plaintiff sued only PacifiCare. PacifiCare cross-complained against Bright. Bright agreed to settlement with plaintiff, and trial judge dismissed PacifiCare’s cross-complaint, finding the settlement to be in good faith. PacifiCare challenged the group’s settlement, arguing that because plaintiff never sued Bright the settlement was collusive and intended to disadvantage PacifiCare’s defense. PacifiCare also contended it had a right to recover its attorney fees (exceeding $1 million) from Bright. PacifiCare contended “it incurred those fees solely to defend claims based on Bright’s acts or omissions, rather than anything PacifiCare did or failed to do.” Health and Safety Code section 1371.25 barred PacifiCare’s indemnity claim for attorney fees – “neither plans nor providers are liable for the costs of defending others.”

Guerrero v. Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Group (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2011, B225999) [not published]

Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of plaintiff physician’s claim against his employer based upon another employee’s theft of his identify, agreeing plaintiff could not delay the running of the statute of limitations until the date of the perpetrator’s criminal conviction. A plaintiff cannot delay filing a civil action until that plaintiff obtains “the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.”

Dozier v. Shapiro (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1509

Nonsuit affirmed because standard of care testimony was properly excluded from trial. Plaintiff’s attorney obtained treating physician’s agreement to criticize defendant’s care without complying with the requirements for designating a “retained expert.” The treating physician was “transformed” into a retained expert, when plaintiff’s attorney gave him additional information and asked him to testify at trial to opinions formed on the basis of that additional information.

Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396

Affirming dismissal of complaint alleging elder abuse. Court of Appeal agreed that to maintain a claim for enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act from a health care provider, a plaintiff must show more than simple or even gross negligence in the provider’s care or custody of the elder – “a plaintiff must allege conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of punitive damages.” To maintain a claim of elder abuse, the plaintiff must also allege facts “establishing the causal link between the neglect and the injury” “with particularity.” The Court agreed that plaintiff’s allegations did not show that “the Hospital did anything sufficiently egregious to constitute neglect (or any other form of abuse) within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act,” and that allegations of “failure of medical practitioner to provide necessary medication or treatment is malpractice,” not abuse.


Titan Electric Corp. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 188

February 19, 2008 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll and David Pruett that an administrative hearing occurring after replacement of a subcontractor on a public works project is effective to approve the earlier replacement of that subcontractor, as the purposes of the Public Contract Code to prevent abuses were satisfied (the public entity had the opportunity to assess and accept the replacement during the project).

Click Here to Read More About This Case

Krishnan v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center (2008) 2008 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 561

January 23, 2008 – In an unpublished opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll’s trial court outcome. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court to grant defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s Opposition was untimely and was properly stricken, and further that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment satisfied the initial burden of proof.

Click Here to Read More About This Case


Perrillo v. Picco & Presley (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 914

December 6, 2007 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Richard Carroll and David Pruett that a physician who provides expert evaluations in the workers compensation context cannot maintain a lien for those same expert services on the employees’ settlement of a civil toxic tort action.

Click Here to Read Article


Colleen M. v. Fertility and Surgical Associates of Thousand Oaks (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1466

September 28, 2005 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Michael Trotter that plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her medical records, and their disclosure was authorized pursuant to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”). Since the patient paid for in vitro fertilization treatments using her ex-fiance’s credit card, disclosure was proper to any person who was paying the patient’s health care expenses.


Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416

February 7, 2002 – In a published opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees with Mark Franzen that plaintiff’s present examining and/or treating physicians should not be permitted to testify as expert witnesses at trial, because plaintiff’s treating physicians were not specifically identified by name. Sine subsequent treating physicians are “percipient experts” they must be identified by name in the expert witness designation.

Click Here to Read More About This Case

Our Firm Has Been Recognized in the Following Rating Services & Publications:

© Copyright 2018 Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen  · All Rights Reserved.