legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info

NOTE:  The purpose of this section, in fact for the entire legal section of The Kaiser Papers is to clearly show that there is a disproportionate number of legal cases that have justifiably been brought against the three corporations - Kaiser Plan, Kaiser Hospitals and Permanente Medical.  With this listing, the public has a jump start on learning where to look to find further information on Kaiser wrong doing and twisting of current law.  This is not an all inclusive listing of lawsuits, but rather a generalized listing for the publics viewing.

1.
Epstein v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 97-1796, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 5, 1998, Decided

2.
Smith v. Kaiser Permanente Med. Group, 97-1423, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 27, 1998, Decided

3.
Ramey-Gillis v. Kaiser Permanente, 97-5308, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 1, 1997, Decided

4.
Ramey-Gillis v. Kaiser Permanente, 97-5308, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 6, 1997, Decided

5.
Dalal v. Kaiser Permanente, 96-6620, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 18, 1997, Decided

6.
Javidi v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, 94-8916, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 1995, Decided

7.
Grant v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Ctr., 93-6830, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 21, 1994

8.
WARNE v. SUPER CT. OF CALIFORNIA, No. 90-755, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 7, 1991

9.
Stallcop v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 87-678, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 14, 1987

10.
Bradley v. Kaiser Permanente of N. Cal. Med. Group, No. 00-15649, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
October 16, 2000 n2, Submitted n2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2)., October 27, 2000, Filed, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED
OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

11.
Benson v. Feldstein, No. 99-35751, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, October 16, 2000 n2, Submitted n2
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., October 26, 2000, Filed,
RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE
RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

12.
Mesnick v. Medicare-Healthcare, No. 99-4061, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2000, Filed, NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE
RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER
PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.,

13.
MESNICK v. MEDICARE-HEALTHCARE, No. 99-4061, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2000, Filed,
DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

14.
Bush v. Martin, No. 00-1247, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2000, Submitted, April 20, 2000,
Decided, RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,

15.
Bush v. Martin, No. 00-1247, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2000, Submitted, April 20, 2000,
Decided, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

16.
Ehlmann v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, No. 98-11020, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2000,
Filed, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

17.
MORRIS v. KAISER PERMANENTE MED. CTR., INC., No. 99-15164, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
December 8, 1999, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, January 11, 2000, Filed, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff's resignation was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not allowing her to stand for election to participancy status and not transferring her; plaintiff failed to show the reason was pretextual.
CORE TERMS: resigned, election, memorandum, ballot, summary judgment, resignation, elevation, reinstatement, terminated, withdrawn...

18.
MORRIS v. KAISER PERMANENTE MED. CTR., INC., No. 99-15164, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
December 8, 1999, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, January 11, 2000, Filed, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

19.
Chiles v. Kaiser Permanente Med. Care Program, No. 97-35911, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
September 18, 1998, Argued and Submitted, Portland, Oregon, September 22, 1998, Filed, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,

20.
Chiles v. Kaiser Permanente Med. Care Program, No. 97-35911, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
September 18, 1998, Argued and Submitted, Portland, Oregon, September 22, 1998, Filed, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

21.
Epstein v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, No. 96-56629, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
February 5, 1998, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, March 19, 1998, Filed, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, notice of appeal, termination, religious discrimination, collective bargaining agreement, employment
discrimination, state law, removal, nondiscriminatory reason, prima facie case...

22.
Epstein v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, No. 96-56629, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
February 5, 1998, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, March 19, 1998, Filed, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

23.
Arrindell v. Kaiser Health Plan, No. 96-2209, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, June 10, 1997, Submitted,
August 5, 1997, Decided, RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,
CORE TERMS: training, prima facie case, satisfactory, intubation, appraisal, airway, discriminatory treatment, summary judgment,
discriminatory, pretextual...

24.
Arrindell v. Kaiser Health Plan, No. 96-2209, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, June 10, 1997, Submitted,
August 5, 1997, Decided, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

25.
Orye v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, No. 96-1975, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, May 6, 1997,
Argued, May 23, 1997, Decided, RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED
OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,

26.
Orye v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, No. 96-1975, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, May 6, 1997,
Argued, May 23, 1997, Decided, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

27.
Dalal v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 95-55223, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, August 7, 1996, FILED,
RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE
RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

28.

Dalal v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 95-55223, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, June 6, 1996, ** Submitted,
San Diego, California ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4., June 18, 1996, FILED, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED
OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,
CORE TERMS: tab, summary judgment, prima facie case, appoint counsel, bin, appointment of counsel, state law, insubordination,
supervisor, abuse of discretion...

29.
Dalal v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 95-55223, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, June 6, 1996, ** Submitted,
San Diego, California ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4., June 18, 1996, FILED, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED
OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

30.
RAINS v. CRITERION SYS., No. 93-17168, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 1995, Argued,
Submitted, San Francisco, California, March 26, 1996, Filed CORE TERMS: federal law, state law, federal jurisdiction, federal
question, cause of action, wrongful termination, public policy, state law claim, violation of public policy, federal cause of action...

31.
Javidi v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, No. 93-17192, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, December 6,
1994, ** Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4., December 16, 1994, FILED, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.,

32.
Javidi v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, No. 93-17192, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, December 6,
1994, ** Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4., December 16, 1994, FILED, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.,
Certiorari Denied June 12, 1995, 33.

33.
Grant v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Ctr., No. 93-15171, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, July 6, 1993
**, Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Accordingly, we deny Grant's request for oral argument., July 13, 1993, Filed, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION
AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.,

34.
Grant v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Ctr., No. 93-15171, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, July 6, 1993
**, Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Accordingly, we deny Grant's request for oral argument., July 13, 1993, Filed, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION
AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.

35.
PAUL v. KAISER PERMANENTE HOSP., No. 89-15083, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 1990, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.

36.
Rey v. Kaiser-Permanente Medical Group, No. 83-6472, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, March 10,
1986, THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY 9TH CIR. R. 21.

37.
Rice v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Tex., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-0714-L, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION, September 27, 2000, Decided, September 27, 2000, Filed; September 28, 2000,
Entered on Docket
OVERVIEW: State claims for negligence and medical malpractice against health plan affiliates were not preempted by ERISA because plaintiffs challenged quality of health plan, not the manner in which it was
administered.
CORE TERMS: health care, preempted, containment, removal, cause of action, subject matter jurisdiction, federal question, state law, employee benefit plan, medical malpractice...

38.
Williams v. Kaiser Permanente Div. of Research, No. C-99-4230 MJJ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, August 22, 2000, Decided, August 22, 2000, Filed; August 28, 2000, Entered in Civil Docket
OVERVIEW: Former employee, who petitioned for bankruptcy after her termination, lacked standing to bring an employment discrimination
claim against employer because she failed to schedule the claim as an asset in her bankruptcy.
CORE TERMS: prima facie case, summary judgment, phone, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, productivity, presentation,
telephone, patient, employment discrimination...

39.
Beers v. Kaiser Permanente Northeast Div., 98-CV-1121 (TJM), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK, December 15, 1999, Decided, December 16, 1999, Filed OVERVIEW: Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed because she had not
provided sufficient evidence that her termination was causally connected to her reporting activities and she had waived some of her claims under state law.
CORE TERMS: retaliation, terminated, summary judgment, reporting, termination, regulation, supervisor, patient, doctor, state law...

40.
Albright v. Kaiser Permanente Med. Group, No. C98-0682 MJJ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, August 3, 1999, Decided, August 3, 1999, Filed; August 6, 1999, Entered in Civil Docket
OVERVIEW: State court's jurisdiction over insured's state law claims of unfair business practices, violations of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and fraud against health plan, hospital, and medical group was not preempted by the Medicare Act.
CORE TERMS: state law, preemption, removal, inextricably intertwined, reimbursement, coil, preempt, bottom, federal jurisdiction, federal
district...

41.
Silva v. Kaiser Permanente, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-98-CV-0767-L, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION, May 25, 1999, Decided, May 25, 1999, Filed; May 26, 1999, Entered on Docket
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs who sought remand to state court of their action alleging medical malpractice and negligence were unsuccessful,
because of preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
CORE TERMS: removal, preempted, containment, utilization, state law, lymphoma, doctors, subject matter jurisdiction, federal question,
implicated...

42.
Paulus v. Kaiser Permanente Med. Group, Inc., No. C-98-0025-VRW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, May 24, 1999, Decided, May 24, 1999, Filed
OVERVIEW: Employer obtained summary judgment in employee's discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
because employee was not a disabled person or a qualified individual, and defendant made reasonable accommodations for employee.
CORE TERMS: disability, accommodation, disabled, summary judgment, repetitive, declaration, reasonable accommodation, unable to perform, nonmoving party, moving party...

43.
Kight v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1479-A, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, January 22, 1999, Decided, January 22, 1999, Filed
OVERVIEW: Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings granted where plaintiff's state claims were completely preempted by federal law; plaintiff's motion for remand denied where federal jurisdiction existed and federal common law governed the dispute.
CORE TERMS: state law, financial incentive, preempted, federal common law, health insurance, coverage, preempt, federal interest, preemption, administrative decision...

44.
Ehlmann v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, CASE NO. 4: 97-CV-264-Y, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS, FORT WORTH DIVISION, August 24, 1998, Decided, August 24, 1998, Filed, As Amended October 19, 1998, Nunc Pro Tunc August 24, 1998.
CORE TERMS: motion to dismiss, state-law, disclosure, causation, standing to bring, breach of fiduciary duty, breach-of-fiduciary-duty, entitle,
pled, fiduciary duties...

45.
Ajemba v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-713 (GK), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, July 13, 1998, Decided, July 14, 1998, Filed
CORE TERMS: removal, state law, preempt, federal law, preemption, preempted, doctors, federal officer, performing, preemption provision...

46.
Schmid v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Civil No. 96-1649-MA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, February
21, 1997, Decided, February 21, 1997, FILED
CORE TERMS: preempted, breach of contract, state law, medical malpractice, preemption provision, duty, negligence claim, breached,
dentist, doctor...

47.
TOLEDO v. KAISER PERMANENTE MED. GROUP, No. C-96-20363 SW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, February 12, 1997, Decided, February 12, 1997, FILED, ENTERED IN CIVIL DOCKET
CORE TERMS: health plan, arbitration, preempted, state law, arbitration provision, insured, preemption, preempt, surgery, surgical...

48.
MILLET v. KAISER PERMANENTE HOSP., NO. C 93-3455 VRW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, October 26, 1994, Filed; October 27, 1994, Entered

49.
MILLET v. KAISER PERMANENTE HOSP., Case No. C 93-3455-VRW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, May 2, 1994, Decided, May 2, 1994, Filed, Adopting Order of October 26, 1994, Reported at: 1994 U.S. Dist.
CORE TERMS: harassment, race discrimination, supervisor, co-worker, prompt, sexual harassment, touched, remedial action, subordinate,
hostile work environment...

50.
Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan v. Bertozzi, No. C 93-3205 WHO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, March 23, 1994, Decided, March 24, 1994,
Filed; March 25, 1994, Entered CORE TERMS: election, beneficiary, summary judgment, administrator, retirement, spouse, failure to respond, annuity, lump sum, estimate...

51.
Carolina v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Civil Action No. 89-0850, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, February 8, 1990, Decided and Filed
CORE TERMS: grievance, prima facie case, memorandum, terminated, attendance, summary judgment, inter-office, disparate treatment, tardy, undisputed facts...

52.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. California Nurses Asso., No. C80 2283 AJZ, United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
July 3, 1980
CORE TERMS: higher classification, fact-finding, arbitrator, nurse, settlement agreement, final disposition, collective bargaining agreement,
bargaining, preliminary injunction, times material...

53.
Presley v. Kaiser Permanente Hosps., S068560, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 15, 1998, Decided

54.
Permanente v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., S055934, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 13, 1996, Decided

55.

Tombaugh v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Ctr., S049576, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 29, 1995, Decided

56.
Fordham v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., S025756, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 29, 1992, Decided

57.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court of County of Alameda, S004097, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 12,
1992, Decided

58.
Warne v. Superior Court of County of Los Angeles, No. S016698, Supreme Court of California, August 29, 1990

59.
Warne v. Superior Court of County of Los Angeles, No. S016606, Supreme Court of California, August 22, 1990

60.
Harkey v. Kaiser Permanente-Co., No. S008464, Supreme Court of California, February 15, 1989

61.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court for County of Alameda, No. A041017, Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate
District, Division Three, January 22, 1988, Decided and Filed

62.
CLIFFORD v. ROWELL, No. 99SC7, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, May 10, 1999, Decided, THIS OPINION IS NOT THE FINAL
VERSION AND SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON FINAL PUBLICATION.

63.
Rowell v. Clifford, No. 97CA1771, COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 13, 1998, Decided, Rehearing
Denied December 10, 1998. Released for Publication May 18, 1999.
CORE TERMS: decedent, wrongful death, wrongful act, viable, survivor, statute of limitations, wrongful death action, summary judgment, wrongful death statute, entitled to maintain...

64.
Whitenhill v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 96CA0552, COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 1997, Decided, Released for Publication August 14, 1997.
CORE TERMS: decedent, heir, deceased, spouse, husband and wife, moving party, wrongful death action, common law, marriage, married...

65.
TAKAYAMA v. KAISER FOUND. HOSP., NO. 19237, SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII, August 30, 1996, Decided, August 30, 1996, FILED
CORE TERMS: laminotomy, scan, film, fusion, spine, bone, case-in-chief, notches, rebuttal, spinal canal...

66.
AGA v. HUNDAHL, NO. 17330, SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII, August 31, 1995, Decided, August 31, 1995, FILED
CORE TERMS: reporter, HRAP Rule, entitled to recover, photocopying, prevailing party, twenty-five, expedited, actually incurred, notice of appeal, set forth...

67.
AGA v. HUNDAHL, NO. 17330, SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII, March
24, 1995, Decided, March 24, 1995, FILED CORE TERMS: legal cause, bias, deposition, substantial factor,
deposition testimony, tortfeasor, peer review, fair trial, reconsideration, hallucinations...

68.
Ramey-Gillis v. Kaiser Permanente, Pet. Docket No. 706, September Term, 1996, COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, May 7, 1997,
Decided, Certiorari Denied October 6, 1997

69.
Stokes v. Kaiser Permanente, 67606, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, November 10,
1993, Decided, November 10, 1993, Entered

70.
Allen v. Carolina Permanente Med. Group, P.A., NO. COA99-1038, COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2000, Heard In
the Court of Appeals, August 1, 2000, Filed, As Corrected August 7,
2000.
OVERVIEW: Judgment affirmed because plaintiff could not have reasonably believed her physician witness would qualify as an expert
witness.
CORE TERMS: specialty, expert witness, medical care, qualify, general practitioner, medicine, clinical, certification, medical malpractice,
specialize...

71.
Matos v. Kaiser Permanente Hosp., NO. 77612, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY,
September 7, 2000, Date of Announcement of Decision
OVERVIEW: Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted because plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the elements
he had to prove to establish defamation.
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, stealing, slander, doctor, deposition, moving party, emergency room, announcement, spreading, genuine issue of material fact...

72.
Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Permanente, NO. 65420, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA
COUNTY, May 5, 1994, Announced,
CORE TERMS: plaintiff-appellant, defendant-appellee, motion in limine, preempted, de novo review, state law, motion to reconsider, expenses incurred, coverage

73.
HARRIS-OFFUTT v. KAISER PERMANENTE MED. CTR., NO. 47794, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT,
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 28, 1985
CORE TERMS: terminable, employment contract, permanent, failure to state a claim, permanent employment, cause of action, termination,
fulltime, at-will, discharged...

74.
Garnett v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Program, No. 37959* PURSUANT TO RULE 2(G) OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE
REPORTING OF OPINIONS, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS MAY BE CITED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS, AND
EXCEPTIONS., Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, December 7, 1978
CORE TERMS: Civil Rule, subpoena, assignment of error, summary judgment, supplemental, supplemental pleading, protective order, leave
to file, invalid, assigned...

75.
Moore v. Kaiser Permanente, Nos. A41885, S35420, SUPREME COURT OF OREGON, September 29, 1988, Filed

76.
ARTINDALE v. PERMANENTE (In re Martindale), CA A102281, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, December 30, 1998, Argued or Submitted on Briefs, February 3, 1999, Filed, DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED
OPINION

77.
BENSON v. FELDSTEIN, CA A93259, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, August 29, 1997, Argued or submitted on briefs, September
17, 1997, Filed

78.
Tenderella v. Kaiser Permanente, CA A87175, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, February 14, 1996, FILED
CORE TERMS: arbitrator, reconsideration, signature, previous decision, neutral arbitrator, formally, arbitration award, plaintiffs filed, corrected

79.
Tenderella v. Kaiser Permanente, CA A87175, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, October 11, 1995, Date argued or submitted on briefs,
November 1, 1995, FILED, Reconsideration Allowed February 14, 1996,

80.
EWING-SWEARINGEN v. EMPLOYMENT DIV., CA No. A80537, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, May 6, 1994, Argued and submitted,
November 16, 1994, Decided, November 16, 1994, Filed, Petition for Review Denied January 24, 1995 (320 Or 507).
CORE TERMS: claimant, telephone, notice, good cause, scheduled, reopening, referee, telephone number, reasonable control, notice of
hearing...

81.
HARVEY v. EMPLOYMENT DIV., CA A81740, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, June 1, 1994, Date argued or submitted on briefs, June 15, 1994, FILED

82.
In re Compensation of Strayer, CA No. A63964, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, December 5, 1990, Date argued or submitted on briefs,
January 9, 1991, Filed

83.
MOORE v. KAISER PERMANENTE, CA No. A41885, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, July 27, 1987, Argued and submitted, May 18,
1988, Reconsideration Denied September 2, 1988. Petition for Review Denied September 29, 1988 (306 Or 661).
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, admissible, causation, willing to testify, issues of material fact, standard of care, qualified expert, question
of fact, return to work, aggravated...

84.
Sibley v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, No. 06-98-00157-CV, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SIXTH DISTRICT, TEXARKANA, August 11, 1999, Submitted, August 12, 1999, Decided
OVERVIEW: Defendant accused of employment discrimination moved for summary judgment after disproving an essential element of plaintiff's cause; the burden shifted to plaintiff, who failed to raise an issue of fact about the element negated.
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, cause of action, outrageous, termination, terminated, duty, emotional distress, discharged, pet, racial
discrimination...

85.
Dinkins v. Dallas Pathology Assocs., No. 05-98-02104-CV, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS, April 22, 1999, Opinion Filed, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS SHALL NOT BE CITED AS
AUTHORITY BY COUNSEL OR BY A COURT. http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/afterreform.html