Legal Opinion
Smith v. PacifiCare Behavioral Health of California, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 25, 2001No. B142321, B145004PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
These consolidated proceedings involve the question whether a health care service plan may enforce an arbitration clause contained in the plan and in related subscriber agreements which does not comply with the statutory disclosure requirements applicable to such clauses. In case No. B145004, the petitioner, George Rivera, seeks a writ of mandate vacating a trial court order granting the motion of the real party in interest, PacifiCare of California (PacifiCare), to compel arbitration in accordance with the plan’s arbitration clause. In case No. B142321, PacifiCare has…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Pegram v. HerdrichSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Allen v. PachecoSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003
- Malek v. Blue Cross of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Imbler v. Pacificare of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Pagarigan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Woolls v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.