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.”

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.”

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.

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.