California Court of Appeal· 8/24/1987
Atienza v. Taub
Citations
- 194 Cal. App. 3d 388
- 239 Cal. Rptr. 454
- 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2049
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- sexual relationship between patient and physician who was treating her for an industrial injury did not constitute malpractice
- sexual relationship between patient and physician who was treating her for an industrial injury did not constitute malpractice
- malpractice claims against physician who treated plaintiff for phlebitis and then engaged in affair with plaintiff did not state cause of action
- “In examining out-of-state authorities, we find that allegations of a physician’s sexual misconduct have provided a basis for a malpractice action only where the patient has alleged that the physician induced sexual relations as part of the therapy.”
- “In examining out-of-state authorities, we find that allegations of a physician’s sexual misconduct have provided a basis for a malpractice action only where the patient has alleged that the physician induced sexual relations as part of the therapy.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Woods
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Haley v. Medical Disciplinary BoardWashington Supreme Court· 1991-11-07· cited 193×
- Yun Hee So v. Sook Ja ShinCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2013-01-03· cited 99×
- Mock v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama· 2000-11-17· cited 59×
- Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2003-03-17· cited 51×
- McCracken v. Walls-KaufmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1998-09-10· cited 48×
- Thierfelder v. WolfertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-09-28· cited 47×
- McDaniel v. GileCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1991-05-21· cited 34×
- Finucan v. Maryland Board of Physician Quality AssuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2004-04-05· cited 29×
- Green v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-06-18· cited 28×
- M.C. v. Tallassee Rehabilitation, P.C.Supreme Court of Alabama· 2015-09-30· cited 27×
- Richard H. v. LARRY D.California Court of Appeal· 1988-02-11· cited 25×
- Odegard v. FinneCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1993-05-18· cited 24×
- Gunter v. HuddleCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1998-11-20· cited 20×
- Burke v. SnyderDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-03-02· cited 16×
- McNall v. SummersCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-06-15· cited 16×
- Smith v. PustCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1993-10-05· cited 13×
- Gromis v. Medical BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-07-30· cited 10×
- Korper v. WeinsteinMassachusetts Appeals Court· 2003-02-24· cited 10×
- Buchanan v. LiebermanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-05-26· cited 9×
- Jacqueline R. v. Household of Faith Family Church, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2002-03-28· cited 7×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court· 1944-04-06· cited 188×
- Zipkin v. FreemanSupreme Court of Missouri· 1968-12-31· cited 110×
- Cotton v. KamblyMichigan Court of Appeals· 1980-11-19· cited 67×
- Waters v. BourhisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1985-12-05· cited 59×
- Roy v. HartogsAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York· 1976-01-30· cited 44×
- Keen v. PrisinzanoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1972-02-02· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.