When will a section 17,000 of the Health and Social Care Act be interpreted in the context of a medical malpractice case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hunt v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 984, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 987 P.2d 705 (Cal. 1999):
Contrary to the County's urging, we do not believe it would be appropriate to disregard authoritative, settled statutory interpretation that was central to the analysis and holding of one of our decisions. (See People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1213, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 144, 858 P.2d 611 ["`Considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation, for ... [the Legislature] remains free to alter what we have done.' [Citations.]"].) The County has advanced no persuasive contention that our conclusion in County of San Diego is erroneous. Accordingly, consistent with established authority, the scope of the County's obligation to provide health care to indigent residents is defined by section 17000 not section 17000.5.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
