No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Selected Recent Court Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Medicolegal Reference Library
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 1983
References
1 33 Cal. 3d 674, 660 P.2d 829, 190 Cal. Rptr. 371 (1983).
2 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 667.7 (West 1980).
3 MICRA Preamble. 33 Cal. 3d at 680 n.3, 660 P.2d at 832 n.3, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 374 n.3. Medical malpractice insurance rates had caused many physicians to strike, completely inter rupting medical care in some sections of the state. 33 Cal. 3d at 678, 660 P.2d at 831, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 374. In 1975, California insurers were paying $180 for each $100 in premiums collected. Id. at 679, 660 P.2d at 832, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 374.
4 Id. at 682 n.4, 660 P.2d at 833 n.4, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 375 n.4.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 689, 660 P.2d at 839, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 381.
7 Id. at 690, 660 P.2d at 840, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 382.
8 Id. at 691, 660 P.2d at 840, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 382.
9 Id. at 684, 660 P.2d at 835, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 378.
10 Id. at 696, 660 P.2d at 845, 190 Cal. Rptr. at 387.
11 103 S. Ct. 2622 (1983).
12 Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978).
13 103 S. Ct. at 2624.
14 429 U.S. 125 (1976).
15 103 S. Ct. at 2627 (quoting Gilbert, 429 U.S. at 136).
16 The Court noted that a denial of pregnancy-related benefits is discriminatory only when such benefits are given special treatment. For example, if no disability benefits are given, denial of pregnancy-related benefits is not discriminatory. See 103 S. Ct. at 2627 n.12.
17 103 S. Ct. at 2631.
18 Id.
19 103 S. Ct. 1011 (1983).
20 15 U.S.C. §§ 13(a) and (f) (1982).
21 The Robinson-Patman Act expressly exempts sales to nonprofit institutions “for their own use.” 15 U.S.C. § 13(c). The district court assumed, for the purpose of granting summary judgment, that this exemption did not cover all of the purchase at issue. 103 S. Ct. at 1014.
22 103 S. Ct. at 1013 n.l (citing 15 U.S.C. 13(a) (1982)).
23 15 U.S.C. § 13(f) (1982).
24 103 S. Ct. at 1017-19.
25 Id. at 1017-18 n.19 (remarks of Rep. Teegarden).
26 103 S. Ct. at 1015 (citing City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light, 435 U.S. 389, 395 (1978)) (definition of “person" in the Sherman Act includes states).
27 103 S. Ct. at 1016.
28 Id. at 1019.
29 Id. at 1025 (Justice Stevens, dissenting). The legislative history supports this argument by analogy. The drafter of the Act stated that discounts to the federal government were permissible, because the federal government could not be in competition with private buyers. Id. at 1017 n. 19 (remarks of Rep. Teegarden). The majority expressly reserved the question of whether sales to a class of indigents were in competition with private enterprise where such sales reflected “a traditional concern of state and local governments" for the plight of indigents. Id. at 1014 n.7.
30 Strictly enforcing the anti-price discrimination statute might promote price rigidity and uniformity, which the Sherman Act seeks to eliminate. Id. at 1027.
31 Id. at 1033.
32 554 F. Supp. 955 (M.D. Ala. 1983).
33 Id. at 963.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 42 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (1978).
37 554 F. Supp. at 958.
38 Id. at 960 (citing cases).
39 Id.
40 Id. at 961.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 962.
44 Sen. Rep. No. 29, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 119 (197'5), reprinted in 1975 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 469, 581-82.
45 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
46 554 F. Supp. at 964.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 965.
50 Id.
51 204 Ala. 455, 86 So. 28 (1920).
52 554 F. Supp. at 965.
53 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1976).
54 554 F. Supp. at 966 (citing Sea-land Serv. v. Alaska R.R., 659 F.2d 243, 245-47 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
55 554 F. Supp. at 966 (citing National Gerimedical Hosp. v. Blue Cross of Kansas City, 452 U.S. 378 (1981)).
56 330 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1983).
57 330 N.W.2d at 704.
58 330 N.W.2 d at 701.
58 In the event an Enrollee is entitled to payment for care rendered on account of
Illness or Injury . .. arising from the act or omission of a third party . . . the [HMO] Plan is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable value of the care and service furnished to the extent of compensation benefits or damages recoverable.
Id. at 701.
59 The agreement attributed the entire award to pain and suffering, permanent injury, and loss of support and consortium. 330 N.W.2d at 701.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 702.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id. at 703.
65 The court left this issue open. The plaintiff was involved in pending litigation against her own automobile liability insurer. Id. at 703 n.3.
66 The terms of subrogation will nonetheless be governed by equitable principles,
unless the agreement clearly and explicitly provides to the contrary .... The membership agreement makes no attempt to supersede the general rules of equity by stating that [the HMO] is to be reimbursed even if its member recovers less than full compensa tion.
Id. at 703-04. (emphasis added).