California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Oroville Hosp. v. Department of Health Servs., C049827

Denial of petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel defendant to reimburse plaintiff for money expended on its employee health care costs is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court and defendant improperly construed and applied pertinent guidelines found in the Provider Reimbursement Manual; 2) the guidelines should not be followed because they violate statutory authority; and 3) defendant's decision is invalid since it was based on the current version of the Provider Reimbursement Manual, which was not promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 12/12/2006
  • Published 01/03/2007

Judges

  • SCOTLAND, P.J.

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., Craig J. Cannizzo, Felicia Y Sze, San Francisco;  and Douglas S. Cumming, Lincoln, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

  • For Appellees:
  • Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Thomas R. Yanger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul Reynaga, and Barbara Haukedalen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Copied to clipboard