Skip to main content

Morris B. Silver M.D., Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Ass'n Welfare Plan

Cal. Ct. App.August 22, 2016No. B267941Cited 12 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Perluss, Zelon, Segal
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from lower court ruling

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Morris B. Silver M.D., Inc. appealed a ruling regarding disputes with the International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Ass'n Welfare Plan concerning healthcare benefits and payment obligations.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** This case involved a disagreement between Dr. Morris B. Silver's medical practice and a union welfare plan that provides healthcare benefits to longshoremen and warehouse workers. The doctor's office and the union's benefit plan had a contract dispute about healthcare services and payment obligations. The medical practice appealed an earlier court ruling about how their disagreement should be resolved. **The Court's Decision** The California Court of Appeal issued a mixed ruling, meaning neither side won completely. The court addressed issues related to the contract between the medical provider and the union benefit plan, but the specific details of what each party must do going forward were not clearly resolved in favor of either side. **What This Means for Workers** This case highlights the complex relationships between healthcare providers and union benefit plans that provide medical coverage to workers. When disputes arise between doctors and benefit plans, it can potentially affect workers' access to healthcare services. Union members should stay informed about their benefit plan's network of providers and understand that contractual disputes between their plan and healthcare providers could impact their medical care options.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Sonoma County Ass'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County
9th CircuitFeb 2013
Mixed Result
Compagnie Financiere de CIC et de L'Union Europeenne v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
2nd CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
William R. PERDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Craig Bushey, and the Benefits Committee, Defendants-Appellees
5th CircuitDec 1993
Defendant Win
INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP
Tex. App.—1st Dist.Dec 2009
Defendant Win
Ketchum
Unknown CourtFeb 1858

<p>Action of assumpsit to recover fare for travel on the plaintiffs’ road.</p> <p>The material facts as found by an auditor, to whom the case was referred, are as follows.</p> <p>From the 25th of August, 1856, to the 5th of February, 1857, Mr. Ketchum, the defendant, and his wife, child and servants, frequently passed over the plaintiffs’ road, between Westport and New York, without paying fare, claiming a right so to do by virtue of a certain resolution of the railroad company hereinafter set forth! For the whole amount of that fare the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in this suit, unless the defendant was exonerated by that resolution from all obligation to pay it. I</p> <p>The railroad company was incorporated in May, 1844, by an act of the General Assembly, which act, (4 Private Acts, 1020,) and the acts in addition thereto, were in evidence in the case. In June, 1844, an unsuccessful effort was made to procure subscriptions to the capital stock. On the 13th of August, 1844, the grantees of the charter adopted certain rules, providing, among other things, that each person who should subscribe for stock should have power, at pleasure, within a certain time, and upon certain conditions, to surrender his stock to the company and thereby relieve himself from liability upon his subscription. It was further provided that each subscriber should advance one dollar per share on one quarter of the number of shares for which he should subscribe. The object of this arrangement was, to obtain the necessary subscriptions, organize the company, and raise funds for preliminary surveys. Under this arrangement 20,400 shares of stock were subscribed for, under date of August 14th, 1844, by a few persons, funds were raised for the surveys, and an executive committee was appointed by the subscribers. The surveys were completed in February, 1845. From that time until the 19th of May, 1846, no material progress was made in organizing the company or procuring the road to be constru

Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.