Legal Opinion

Viola v. Department of Managed Health Care

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 11, 2005No. B174455PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, P. J.

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Managed Health Care (Department) must reject health care service plans that include mandatory binding arbitration provisions. Plaintiffs argue such plans are in derogation of their right to civil jury trial, and must be rejected. They have sought judicial intervention to prevent approval of such plans. We conclude that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they seek because the Legislature has authorized arbitration of disputes under health care service plans and the governing statutory scheme does not authorize the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Twining v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Medeiros v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
  4. Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Loucks v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API