Small business attorneys
An employer met its summary judgment burden on a challenge under Lab. Code, §§ 204, 510, 1194, to its timekeeping policies, which provided for rounding and a voluntary grace period at the beginning and end of shifts, by showing that its employees complied with a policy against working during the grace period and were compensated for any work done; Adjudicating individual claims for meal and rest breaks under Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512, and reimbursement for business expenses under Lab. Code, § 2802, was error because the employer did not move for summary judgment or summary adjudication on those claims, the employee pled sufficient facts supported with a declaration, and a prior settlement had not released the claims; Any error in granting summary adjudication on claims under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., was not prejudicial.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Appellants, a hospital, its board of directors, and its medical staff, sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which granted respondent physician’s petition for writ of small business attorneys administrative mandamus pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5, directing appellants to reinstate respondent’s provisional nephrology privileges at the hospital, which appellants had previously revoked.
Respondent physician filed a petition for writ of mandamus after appellants, a hospital, its board of directors, and its medical staff, revoked his nephrology privileges. The trial court considered evidence of a Board of Medical Quality Assurance (BMQA) proceeding against respondent, found that his patient care met appellants’ standards, and directed appellants’ to reinstate his privileges. The court reversed, holding that evidence of the BMQA proceeding was inadmissible because the proceeding was not concerned with respondent’s ability to meet appellants’ standards for holders of staff nephrology privileges. The court also found that the action was not governed by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(1), which provided for a three-year statute of limitations, because respondent did not allege that appellant failed to adopt certain bylaws, or any other breach of an obligation imposed by statute. Thus, the petition was timely filed under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 343. Finally, the court noted that the patient review of respondent’s care, which showed specific instances of his failure to perform according to appellant’s standards, was substantial to support revocation of his privileges.
The court reversed, finding that evidence from an administrative proceeding was inadmissible because the proceeding did not concern respondent physician’s ability to meet appellants’, a hospital, its board of directors, and its medical staff, standards for staff privileges. The court also found that a four-year statute of limitations period applied and that there was substantial evidence to support the revocation of respondent’s privileges.
