California Supreme Court Watch

#20-198 Lopez v. Ledesma, S262487. (B284452; 46 Cal.App.5th 980; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC519180.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Was a physician’s assistant who treated a patient without direct physician supervision entitled to invoke the limitations of Civil Code section 3333.2 on noneconomic damages?

Review granted: 7/29/2020

Case published: 2/24/2022

See the California Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Lopez v. Ledesma (2022) 12 Cal.5th 848.)

“Construing the statute [Civ. Code, § 3333.2] in light of its purposes and our precedent, we hold that section 3333.2 applies to a physician assistant who has a legally enforceable agency relationship with a supervising physician and provides services within the scope of that agency relationship, even if the physician violates his or her obligation to provide adequate supervision.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Meehan concurred.