News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] In re E.O.
Juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status is affirmed as the only provision of Family Code section 7611 that might possibly apply is subdivision (d) which states that a man is a presumed father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child," and here, the father did not establish that he came within this or any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611.

[03/03] Mendoza v. Ramos
In a father's petition to modify custody and support orders of his four children, the court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) trial court's refusal to attribute income because the mother was receiving CalWORKs was proper; and 2) the father's rights were not violated as neither parties requested testimony.

[02/26] In Re Marriage of MacManus
In marital dissolution proceedings, trial court's order reallocating back child support to back spousal support is affirmed as, the order was not an abuse given the trial court's broad discretion to consider the "big picture" concerning the parties' assets and income available for support in light of the marriage standard of living.

Read More

Government Benefits

[03/08] Wildman v. Astrue
In a petition for review of the denial of social security disability benefits, the petition is denied where: 1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in discounting a physician's opinion because it was conclusory and failed to account for petitioner's unjustified noncompliance; 2) the ALJ did not err when he discounted petitioner's testimony regarding her limitations due to her noncompliance; and 3) the ALJ properly considered and weighed the available medical evidence and petitioner's testimony.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] California Pharm. Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly
In an action to enjoin the California Department of Health Care Services Director from implementing state legislation reducing payments to certain medical service providers, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where the state failed to study the impact of a 5% percent rate reduction on the statutory factors of efficiency, economy, quality, and access to care prior to implementing the rate reductions.

[03/03] Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger
In an action to enjoin California legislation that reduces the state contribution to wages paid to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers as preempted by Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act, a grant of the injunction is affirmed where: 1) both the legislature and the Department of Social Services recognized that reimbursement rates ? that is, providers' wages and benefits ? were directly correlated to ensuring that services were consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, and sufficient to ensure access to services under the IHSS program; 2) the state should have studied the impact of its decreased contribution to providers' wages and benefits prior to passing Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code section 12306.1(d)(6), and the State was not ipso facto immunized from challenges to its actions because it had no system in place to make such an assessment; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs established irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, as its finding regarding provider harm was not clearly erroneous.

[03/02] St. John's Well Child & Family Ctr. v. Schwarzenegger
In a petition for writ of mandate by a nonprofit network of five community health centers and six school-based clinics in medically underserved areas of the state, claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger's use of his line-item veto authority exceeded constitutional limits because individual budget cuts he further reduced were not items of appropriation that could be individually vetoed or reduced, the petition is denied as the particular Assembly Bill 4X 1 budget reductions at issue were "items of appropriation" within the meaning of article IV, section 10(e) of the state constitution and the governor's line-item vetoes reducing them, while approving other portions of the Bill, were constitutionally authorized.

Read More