News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

[04/25] State of California Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt
In a case involving whether the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) complied with an order requiring it to provide for the review of all foster care cases open on or after March 3, 2003, for benefits eligibility under a prior case's construction of a statute determining eligibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program, denial of motions to enforce the judgment is reversed in part insofar as the court failed to address a request to authorize discovery regarding the agencies' compliance. Grant of agencies' motion for relief from judgment as of the date of the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the agencies to implement the DRA as Congress intended.

[04/23] State Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Superior Court (D.P.)
The juvenile court has the authority to order a dependent child returned to the home of designated prospective adoptive parents when, after a hearing held to determine whether the removal of a child from the home of prospective adoptive parents is in the minors' best interest, the court is of the opinion that an emergency removal occurring some three months earlier was in the minors' best interests but events which occurred since the removal justify returning the minors to the designated prospective adoptive parents' home. Furthermore, section 361.4 of Welf. & Inst. Code does not limit the juvenile court's discretion to order a minor returned to prospective adoptive parents after a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26(n).

[04/22] Edwards v. Edwards
In a child support case considering the applicability of the statutory support guideline to a competent adult child who has moved away to college, the court of appeals concludes that where neither parent retains "primary physical responsibility" under Family Code section 4055 subdivision (b)(1)(D) of an adult child for any percentage of time, the guideline formula, by its terms, is inapplicable.

[04/21] Christensen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
In a suit for relief from tax liability as an "innocent spouse," summary judgment for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is affirmed where relief under 26 U.S.C. section 6015(f) is available only to taxpayers who file joint federal income tax returns.

[04/04] In re Valerie W.
An order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where the trial court's finding of adoptability was not supported by substantial evidence.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[04/22] Sewell Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
In proceedings arising from a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the BLBA), an order of the Benefits Review Board affirming an award of benefits is vacated and remanded where: 1) the three year statute of limitations under 20 C.F.R. section 725.308(a) applies to subsequent claims for benefits; and 2) a remand was proper for further proceedings on whether the claim was timely under the three year statute of limitations, as it applies to subsequent claims.

[04/21] Glazer v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an appeal invoking an issue under ERISA as to when medical reports relied on by a plan administrator during the review of a denial of benefits must be produced to the claimant for her to receive a "full and fair review", summary judgment for plan administrator is affirmed where: 1) the pertinent federal regulations did not require plan administrator to produce the medical reports requested by plaintiff during the pendency of the review; 2) the district court applied the correct legal standard of review; and 3) the decision by plan administrator to deny plaintiff's application for benefits was right.

[04/18] Brooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a case considering whether a year of industrial disability leave (IDL) payable to state employees under Government Code 19869-19877.1 falls within the ambit of the two-year limitation of aggregation of temporary disability payments in Labor Code section 4656 subdivision (c)(1), the court of appeals rules that, under the current statutory scheme, state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

[11/21] Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

More...