Representative Appellate Cases

Harbor Regional Center v. Office of Administrative Hearings, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 293. Second District Court of Appeal. The court held that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) had jurisdiction over consumer's claim that a temporary worker should receive a pay raise from regional center when acting as a replacement for the child's caregiver during the primary caregiver's maternity leave, because the claim was within the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act's right to a fair hearing as to "all issues concerning" the child's right to receive services under the Act including "any decision or action" that mother believed was not in child's best interests, where mother had devised a physical therapy program for child that was both appropriate and beneficial, the program required caregivers who could perform tasks that fell outside the scope of respite care or homecare services, and without increased compensation mother would be unable to attract and retain qualified caregivers.

Samantha C. et al. v. The Office of Administrative Hearings et al., (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1462; 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415, Second District Court of Appeal. (Questions presented - Is the definition of developmental disability, i.e., Welf. & Inst. Code 4512(a) limited to the five enumerated conditions? and Whether a applicant under the Fifth Category required an IQ at or near the range of mental retardation in order to be found eligible.) The trial court's decision was reversed in part and affirmed in part. The importance of this case was further explained in Samantha C. v. State Dept. of Developmental Services, (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 71.

Vaughn v. Marable, (2009), Case B199564 (LASC LP010470) Second District Court of Appeal. (Questions presented - Was there substantial evidence supporting the trial court's decision that the decedent's son misappropriated two parcels of property from the estate. Is the decedent's Estate entitled treble damages upon recovery?) The trial court's decision was affirmed in part.

Peter S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, (2008) Case 09-55248 (D.C. 2:03 -cv-06798-FMC-CW) Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Question presented - Can a plaintiff who prevails on his appeal of an adverse administrative decision, bring a claim for 1983 damages; if so, when does the claim accrue?). The parties settled the case.

Stanley v. Dorn, Platz & Company, (2008) Case B200477 (LASC 341808) Second District Court of Appeal. (Question presented - Does the Americans with Disabilities Act require the appointment of counsel for a pro per litigant, with disabilities, as a reasonable accommodation?) Trial court ruling affirmed - unpublished.

In re: John Basmajian Living Trust, (2007), Case # B191507 (LASC LP006178) Second District Court of Appeal. (Does the filing of an Accounting, where the Trustee gifted himself funds from the estate, trigger the Trust's no-contest clause? Trial court ruling reversed - un-published.

Herman v. Toppel, (2006) Case B181302 (LASC LP010115). Second District Court of Appeal. (Question presented - Construction of a self-drafted will with missing word concerning appointment of executor.) Trial court ruling affirmed - unpublished.

People v. Kevin Z., (2004) Case B177915 (LASC PJ28072). Second District Court of Appeal. (Question presented - Must the minor exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking joinder of a school district pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code § 727(a).) The case was dismissed, based upon an interim settlement agreement.

Berlad et al v Office of Administrative Hearings, (2003) Case B161078 (LASC BS074619). Second District Court of Appeal. (The F.D. Lanterman Regional Center is an indispensable party, such that the trial court was correct in dismissing the writ of administrative mandamus.) Trial court ruling affirmed - unpublished.

In Re: Limited Conservatorship of the Person of Peter Barold Riedel, Case : B162703 [Consolidated with B165898], Second District Court of Appeal. (The applicable legal standard in a limited conservatorship jury trial is whether the proposed conservatee can meet his own needs for food, shelter, clothing and medical treatment as a reasonable person.). Unpublished decision affirming the trial court’s ruling.

In re: John Basmajian Living Trust, (2003) (un-published 2nd District), Case # B156908 (Trust amendment was obtained by undue influence, and thereby void - trial court’s determination affirmed.) Represented the decedent's daughter, Respondent.

County of Los Angeles v. Smith, (2002), un-published 2nd District, Case # B149744 (Private Attorney General fees are appropriate where as here, the case concerns a matter of public concern - trial court was reversed). Represented Smith, Appellant. In re: John Basmajian Living Trust, (2002) (un-published 2nd District), Case # B146995 (Trustee had adequate notice of the issues in the referral to the referee. There was no denial of due process. The trial court's order was affirmed.) Represented the decedent's daughter, Respondent.

Allen v. Est. of A. Friedman, (2002) (un-published 2nd District) Case # B148284, (Letter from decedent to attorney, addressing testamentary matters was properly admitted as decedent’s holographic will. Trial Court's order affirmed) Represented contestant, Appellant.

County of Los Angeles v. Smith, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 500 [lead attorney], (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, preempts state law and controls over less specific federal TANF laws, therefore, the County cannot initiate collections actions against Parents of children placed by the juvenile Court where the child has a disability and an Individualized Educational Program, IEP. Trial Court's order in favor of Smith affirmed, part of order which denied relief reversed.) Represented Smith, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

In re: Mary Ann S.; Richard & Sara C. Minors, (1998) (un-published 4th District) Case # E022538, (Family reunification plans must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, where parent is a person with developmental disabilities. Trial Court order affirmed.) Although we prevailed on the issue litigated, the court found that the County had complied with the ADA.