State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare CA4/1

── State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE COMPENSATION D083359 INSURANCE FUND, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PSC1500168) v. READYLINK HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Kira L. Klatchko, Judge. Affirmed. Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, Drew E. Pomerance, Vincent S. Gannuscio and Joseph C. Gjonola for Defendant and Appellant. Rhett R. Johnson, R. Timothy O’Connor and Tony M. Chang for Plaintiff and Respondent. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (ReadyLink) appeals a judgment entered in favor of State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) following orders granting motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. It contends the trial court erred: (1) in dismissing certain of its defenses and cross-claims before trial; (2) in granting the JNOV; and (3) in granting a new trial. We disagree with the first and second contentions, and conclude the third contention is moot. Hence we affirm.  I. BACKGROUND At the core of this appeal is an insurance dispute on which nine different decisionmaking bodies1 have weighed in over the past 20 years. Distilled to its essence, the dispute is as to what, if any, balance ReadyLink owes SCIF in premiums for a workers’ compensation insurance policy (the SCIF policy) that SCIF issued to ReadyLink for the 12-month period commencing September 1, 2005 (the 2005 policy year).2 In discussing this dispute, we will mention the role of each of the nine bodies that have weighed in on it. But we will focus particular attention on publicly available opinions from five of those bodies, as follows: 1. A 2009 proposed decision from an administrative law judge (the ALJ): In re Appeal of ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. from the Decision of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (Aug. 6 2009) Dept. of Ins. No. AHB-WCA-08-14 (ReadyLink Agency Appeal); 2. A 2009 order of the California Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) adopting the ReadyLink Agency Appeal decision and designating it as precedential (Sept. 30, 2009); 3. A 2012 opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal: ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. Jones (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1166 (ReadyLink I); 1 These nine decisionmaking bodies include: an administrative court; the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California; the Los Angeles County Superior Court; the Second District Court of Appeal; the United States District Court for the Central District of California; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal; the Riverside County Superior Court; the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One; and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. 2 SCIF is “a quasi-governmental entity,” “ ‘subject to the jurisdiction and control of the state Insurance Commissioner,’ ” that “ ‘ “is at once both an agency of the state and an insurance carrier.” ’ ” (Cover Right Roofing, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 415, 419.) 2  4. A 2014 opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: ReadyLink Healthcar