Harbor Regional Center v. Office of Administrative Hearings
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUBIN, J.
Harbor Regional Center (Harbor) appeals from the judgment in this administrative mandate action, contending that the trial court erred by determining that an administrative law judge (ALJ) from the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) had jurisdiction under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act or Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4500 et seq.) to order the center to pay a higher wage to the in-home care provider of a severely disabled girl.1 We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, jurisdiction to hear such disputes rests with…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. RankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Crocker National Bank v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Department of Developmental ServicesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Madrigal v. California Victim Compensation & Government Claims BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Guthrey v. Alta CA Regional CenterDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- In re H.D. CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Leider v. Lewis, California Court of Appeal, 2nd District2016
- Madrigal v. California Victim Compensation & Government Claims BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.