CMDA | History of the Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Med Grp case

Home
Issues & Ethics
Healthcare
Conscience Rights

History of the Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Med Grp case

Superior Court, San Diego County
4th App. Dist. Div. 1
DO45438

CA Sup Crt S142892

ADF for defendants, Lambda Legal for plaintiff; CMA filed brief on behalf of defendants

AUL's pro hac vice motion and application to file brief granted 29 March 2007. (So our brief has been filed officially).
AUL filed brief on behalf of AAPLOG, CMDA, and PFL on 26 Feb. 2007.
On 21 Nov. 2006, defendants moved to dismiss review as improvidently granted, or in the alternative, to clarify issues presented.
Opening brief filed 21 September, 2006.
On 28 June 2006, the parties were ordered to limit briefing to the following issue: Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation?
Petition for review granted 14 June 2006.
Petition for review filed with state sup crt on 25 April 2006. Answer was filed on 15 May, and reply was filed on 26 May.
On 7 April 2006, an order was entered denying the petition for rehearing.
Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing on 29 March 2006.
On 14 March 2006, writ of mandate issued directing superior court to vacate order granting plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication and to enter an order denying defendants' motions for summary adjudication. This means it is up to the plaintiff to file an interlocutory appeal to the CA supreme Court.
On 30 December 2006, order granted in appellate court for rehearing (re: Unruh Act).
On 5 December 2005, the appellate court reversed the lower court, ruling that the ROC defense applied and that the doctors are entitled to a trial. The court vacated the lower court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff.
Argued 11 October 2005.
In mid-September 2005, CMA withdrew its amicus brief to dispel suggestions that it had abandoned its opposition to discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The case is scheduled for argument on 11 October, 2005.
On 3 June 2005, plaintiff answered CMA's brief.
On 27 January 2005, the court of appeals directed plaintiff to explain why why her doctors could not refer her to another physician--plaintiff has until 25 February 2005 to respond.
On 7 December 2001, plaintiff filed suit alleging discrimination because defendants referred her to other physicians rather than perform the artificial insemination she demanded.