Plaintiff patient appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Imperial County.

Plaintiff patient appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Imperial County (California), which granted defendant hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the patient's action for violation of Evid. Code, § 1158.The patient sought a copy of her medical records. class action lawsuit lawyers near meThe hospital provided the patient's attorneys with the medical records but charged them $ 2 a page. The patient filed a class action complaint alleging that the hospital systematically violated the cost limitations of § 1158, which generally provided that a patient could be charged no more than 10 cents a page for copies of medical records. The hospital contended that the cost limitation provisions of § 1158 were not enforceable by way of a private civil action. The court, in reversing, noted that Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.7, allowed patients to obtain a court order compelling production of medical records, that enforcement of the provisions of Evid. Code, § 1158, was not expressly assigned to any administrative agency, and that no administrative procedure or remedy was provided by § 1158. The court concluded that the language of § 1158, its legislative history, and the relevant case law all suggested that the cost limitation provisions of § 1158 could be enforced directly by patients. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings.The court reversed the trial court's judgment.Cross-defendant appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) for cross-complainant on its cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, and cross-complainant appealed an order denying its request for attorney's fees.Plaintiffs were injured when a car sold by cross-defendant collided with a garbage truck manufactured by cross-complainant. Plaintiff sued several defendants including cross-complainant and cross-defendant, which both sought equitable indemnity. The trial court granted summary judgment for cross-complainant, which then settled with plaintiffs in exchange for their abandonment of an appeal. Cross-complainant then successfully moved for summary judgment on cross-defendant's equitable indemnity claim, but the trial court denied its request for attorney's fees. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment for cross-complainant because a material issue of fact existed as to the fault of cross-defendant and any other non-judgment-proof defendant and dismissed the appeal for denial of attorney's fees as moot. Cross-defendant could not be collaterally estopped from seeking equitable indemnity by the determination inherent in cross-complainant's summary judgment of nonliability.The summary judgment for cross-complainant's equitable indemnity claim was reversed because cross-defendant could not be collaterally estopped by cross-complainant's summary judgment of nonliability against plaintiffs. Cross-complainant's appeal for denial of attorney's fees was dismissed as moot.