Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alexander A. De Los Reyes v. Kevin F. Hanley

May 25, 2012

ALEXANDER A. DE LOS REYES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
KEVIN F. HANLEY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.



(Super. Ct. No. 34200900055133CUFRGDS)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.

De Los Reyes v. Hanley

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Plaintiff Alexander A. De Los Reyes sued defendant Kevin F. Hanley, M.D., alleging that defendant filed a false medical report in connection with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court sustained without leave to amend defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's second amended complaint, on the ground that defendant's alleged actions were protected by the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (§ 47(b)).

On appeal, plaintiff has failed to show that he has stated a viable cause of action. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges as follows: While defendant was acting "as a qualified medical examiner," he prepared a report about plaintiff in connection with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits. The report falsely stated plaintiff's knee was normal. Further, defendant destroyed evidence by substituting an MRI image of a different patient's knee, which conduct resulted in plaintiff's acceptance of a low workers' compensation settlement. The complaint purported to state causes of action against defendant for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.*fn1

Defendant demurred, contending plaintiff's claims were barred by the section 47(b) litigation privilege.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and plaintiff filed a timely appeal.*fn2

DISCUSSION

I

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.