Chiropractic Economics Masthead  
HomeMagazineNewsBuyers GuideStudentsCONTACT USSUBSCRIPTIONS
Spacer Advertisting
CLASSIFIEDSCARDPACK ONLINEDATEBOOKPAST ISSUESCHIRO HISTORYMARKETPLACE

November 2005

Judge rules against California chiropractors

The San Diego County Superior Court has denied the California Chiropractic Association’s standing to bring class allegations filed in 2001 against American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc. (ASHP) and American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. (ASHN). But the association reaffirms it will pursue its claims against the insurer.

Judge William R. Nevitt's Oct. 20 decision was premised upon a finding that the new standing requirements of California’s Proposition 64 should be applied retroactively to CCA's ongoing case against ASHP.

Propostion 64 ,approved by California voters in 2004, curtails the ability to bring certain types of unfair competition law (UCL) actions. According to California attorneys Akin Gump Hauer & Feld, Proposition 64 says that the plaintiff must suffer “injury in fact and loss of money or property as a result of” the alleged violation of the UCL. Proposition 64 also mandates that UCL actions on behalf of others can only be brought as class actions, unless such claims are brought by the attorney general, district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city procesutor.

According to Bill Howell, executive director, although Judge Nevitt's decision means that CCA cannot proceed with class litigation against ASHP, CCA has reserved its right to appeal any and all of the claims that have previously been dismissed by Judge Nevitt and, as such, dismissal of those claims is not final.

Additionally, the California Supreme Court has yet to decide whether Proposition 64 can be applied retroactively. Depending upon the court’s decision, Judge Nevitt's ruling might still be overturned.

Howell said that several arbitable claims have been stayed, pending litigation. Since CCA and several individual doctors of chiropractic intend to arbitrate these claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a class, the case remains “far from over.”

Sources: California Chiropractic Association, www.calchiro.org; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, www.akingump.com

Industry News from:
Chiropractic News from:

2007
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Archive



   
Home | Magazine | News | Buyers Guide | Products | Contact Us | Subscribe
Advertising | Classifieds | Cardpack | Datebook | Past Issues | Chiro History
Give us Feedback