Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KITCHING, J.
I
Introduction
This appeal presents the issue whether a private health care service plan contract requiring a $1,000 copayment for inpatient hospital services in connection with pregnancy and child delivery violates the prohibition against the use of copayments “because of sex” in the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (the Knox-Keene Act). (Health & Saf. Code, § 1340 et seq.)1 We find it does not. The Knox-Keene Act allows health care service plans to limit coverage for pregnancy-related services and also generally allows copayments, subject to some exceptions.…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- General Electric Co. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Geduldig v. AielloSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- Peterson v. Cellco PartnershipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Oakland Raiders v. National Football LeagueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Das v. Bank of America, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Price v. Starbucks Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Behnke v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.