Consumer Watchdog v. Department of Managed Health Care
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*885CROSKEY, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ refusal to address the important question of whether the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), prior to the operative date of the applied behavior analysis statute (Health & Saf. Code, § 1374.73 (the ABA statute)), could properly deny plan coverage for autism therapy provided by unlicensed persons. They do so on the stated ground that the issue was not raised in the trial court by Consumer Watchdog. This is totally contrary to the record in this matter and it makes a real difference in the relief to which…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bowland v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Magit v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Bisno v. SaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- In Re MakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Amerson v. ChristmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.