Palmer v. Superior Court

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 953·127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5002·2002 Daily Journal DAR 13092·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11254
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2002D040486California7,458 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Petitioner William Palmer, plaintiff in an underlying action against his health maintenance organization, PacifiCare of California (PacifiCare or the HMO) and the medical group that is his primary health care provider, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, Inc. (SRS), seeks a writ of mandate setting aside an order of the superior court that struck his allegations of entitlement to punitive damages against SRS. Palmer contends the trial court misinterpreted the protective provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13, which require an order to amend a pleading to add claims for punitive damages against health care providers. In Palmer’s view, these provisions should not apply to SRS in the capacity in which it acted concerning his case, as a utilization review service provider to the PacifiCare HMO, rendering advice to the HMO about whether requested medical services, equipment, or supplies were “medically necessary” within the terms of the PacifiCare plan. Palmer questions whether (1) SRS, a medical group, qualifies as a health care provider within the definitions of the statute, and (2) whether his particular allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.