Navigation bar
  Print document Start Previous page
 1 of 7 
Next page End  

                                                                1
_______________________________________________________________
Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Court's 7/24/2003 Ruling
A representative copy of the filing
JACQUELYN FINNEY
Encinitas, CA 
In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JACQUELYN FINNEY,
Case No.: GIN024734
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'
Plaintiff/Petitioner
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE
COURT'S TELEPHONIC RULING
(7/24/2003)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
MANAGED HEALTH CARE; DANIEL
ZINGALE, DIRECTOR; ANDREW GEORGE, 
Date:
October 2, 2003
SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL, HMO HELP
Time:
3:00 p.m.
CENTER; DOES 1 – 100,
Dept.
30
Judge:  Hon. Thomas P. Nugent
    Defendants/Respondents
[Telephonic Ruling (760) 806-6050]
I.  INTRODUCTION
Defendants seek this Court's approval to strip plaintiff and all managed health care patients
of their broad rights and protections under the U.S./California Constitutions, common law,
California Public Policy, and the Knox-Keene Act, acting in the interests of the present
Governor, state officials, health plans, and large employers, not HMO patients.
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is based upon trivial,
transparent, technically deficient pretexts to permit them to continue to conduct and condone
illegal enterprises and actions including:
1.
Prior restraint on patient speech in the context of doctor-patient relationships as a
precondition to obtain mandated and contractual health care benefits.
RECEIVED
2003 SEP 19   PM 2:09
NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT
Previous page Top Next page