- (Medi-Cal Lien) The Medicaid Act permits a state to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care. Gallardo, an Incapacitated Person, by and through her Parents and Co-Guardians Vassallo et el. v. Marstiller, Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (No. 20-1263 Argued January 10, 2022-Decided June 6, 2022)
- (Expert Testimony) Defense expert did not concede causation for alleged neck pain from minor car crash because his concession hinged on the jury’s belief of plaintiff’s credibility. Anthony Davis v. Tyler Ray Harano (No. B306575 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC392726 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight Filed June 8, 2022)
- (Motion for Summary Judgment) Plaintiff’s discovery response that she was “unsure” if she had received the Notice of Trustee Sale barred her from later claiming that she never received the notice when opposing summary judgment. Beth Field v. U.S. Bank National Association (No. B309111 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC107408 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight File June 9, 2022)
- (Mini-Opening Statements) Trial courts have discretion to restrict and reject improper content of proposed brief opening statements before voir dire. D.D. v. David Pitcher (No. F080947 Super. Ct. No. BCV-17- 100760) California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed June 15, 2022)
- (Controlled Substances) To convict a doctor for prescribing controlled substances without authorization, the Government must prove that the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted without authorization. Xiulu Ruan v. United States (No. 20-1410 Argued March 1, 2022-Decided June 27, 2022)
- (Government Claims Act) Hospital patient’s letter, which failed to comply with presentation requirements under the Government Claims Act, constituted a claim for injuries, adequate to trigger healthcare provider’s duty to give notice of the insufficiencies. Timonthy Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (No. E075184 Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1934524 California Courts of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division Two Filed June 28, 2022)
The above referenced court opinions have come to our attention during last month. Please find below a brief summary of these opinions for your consideration.
- (Medi-Cal Lien) The Medicaid Act permits a state to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care. Gallardo, an Incapacitated Person, by and through her Parents and Co-Guardians Vassallo et el. v. Marstiller, Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (No. 20-1263 Argued January 10, 2022-Decided June 6, 2022)
In this case, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Medicaid Act requires any state which accepts funds under the Medicaid Act is to require beneficiaries of that aid to assign to the state any rights to support for the purpose of medical care and payment for medical care from any third-party. Thus, the court held that under the Medicaid Act a state could seek reimbursement from settlement amounts representing payment for future medical care. The court explained that nothing in the text of the Medicaid Act limited beneficiary’s assigment to payment from past medical already paid for by Medicaid (or in California Medi-Cal). The court ruled that the grant of any rights to payment for medical care covered payment for both past and future medical expenses.
- (Expert Testimony) Defense expert did not concede causation for alleged neck pain from minor car crash because his concession hinged on the jury’s belief of plaintiff’s credibility. Anthony Davis v. Tyler Ray Harano (No. B306575 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC392726 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight Filed June 8, 2022)
Plaintiff was involved in a car accident that resulted in injuries and a settlement. In the next year, defendant’s car contacted plaintiff’s rear bumper resulting in slight damage to the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff walked around the accident scene without discomfort and drove himself home. Immediately after, plaintiff called his attorney who recommended that he go to medical providers who worked on a lien basis, which meant that they would defer billing demands and charged against plaintiff’s expected recovery against the defendant. Plaintiff sued the defendant. At trial, defendant conceded negligence, but the jury found that the accident caused no injury to plaintiff and awarded nothing. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict on the issue of causation. The appeals court affirmed.
The court found that the plaintiff’s injury was not conceded. The defense expert stated that the accident did not cause the plaintiff’s injury if and only the jury believed that plaintiff was telling the truth about his supposed new pain. Thus, the expert’s statements hinged on the jury’s belief of plaintiff’s credibility. The defense made convincing challenges to plaintiff’s credibility based on his relaxed conduct and accident scene, Plaintiff called to his attorney before seeking medical attention, and the expert’s own examination of plaintiff before trial. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff had hidden an earlier accident from his own medical witness who opined that the later accident injured him. Based on this evidence, the jury found that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury, and the court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion.
- (Motion for Summary Judgment) Plaintiff’s discovery response that she was “unsure” if she had received the Notice of Trustee Sale barred her from later claiming that she never received the notice when opposing summary judgment. Beth Field v. U.S. Bank National Association (No. B309111 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC107408 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Eight File June 9, 2022)
In this case, the plaintiff answered a key contention interrogatory concerning defendant’s alleged wrongdoing with one word: Unsure. When later confronted with defense summary judgment motion, plaintiff specified the type of wrongdoing to which she accused defendant of committing. The appeals court affirmed the trial court properly granting the motion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court noted that the California Civil discovery process aims to honor of truth in the case, thus facilitating settlement based on mutually expected value of the suit. Evasive discovery responses frustrate this goal by concealing the truth. A party cannot evade discovery duties and try to defeat summary judgment by adding factual claims to create last minute dispute issues. The court noted that this was the tact here and it failed. The court published this opinion to reiterate the harm suffered by an attorney’s client when a discovery response is crafted or in an evasive manner.
- (Mini-Opening Statements) Trial courts have discretion to restrict and reject improper content of proposed brief opening statements before voir dire. D.D. v. David Pitcher (No. F080947 Super. Ct. No. BCV-17- 100760) California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed June 15, 2022)
This matter involved a minor who was involved in a bicycle accident that occurred at the defendants’ residence. During trial the plaintiff’s counsel’s first motion of limine was to request permission to make a brief opening statement prior to voir dire questioning. Defense counsel opposed the motion as “unnecessary,&rquo; “a waste of time,” and argued it “might precondition the jury.” The trial court granted the motion under very specific conditions. The plaintiff’s counsel’s statement did not past muster and was rejected. The jury found the defendant not negligent, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the plaintiff contended the trial court violated the plain language of Code of Civil Procedure Section 222.5 by not allowing his counsel to give a brief opening statement prior to voir dire questioning. Section 222.5 provides, in part, that at a party’s request, “the trial judge shall allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process.”
The appeals court affirmed the trial court ruling. It noted the trial courts have discretion to limit the amount of case-specific facts parties can present before prospective jurors either through opening statements or their questioning. Despite Section 222.5’s mandate, the legislative history of that statute indicates that trial judges retain the discretion to allow or disallow brief opening statements if they contain objectionable matter. Here, the trial court noted, in disapproving the statement, that it was argumentative. The trial court’s determination was accepted as plaintiff did not challenge or address the trial court’s evidentiary ruling that the brief opening statement was argumentative.
- (Controlled Substances) To convict a doctor for prescribing controlled substances without authorization, the Government must prove that the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted without authorization. Xiulu Ruan v. United States (No. 20-1410 Argued March 1, 2022-Decided June 27, 2022)
This matter was heard before the United States Supreme Court and involved two licensed medical doctors who prescribed controlled substances and were tried separately for violating 21 U.S.C. section 841. This section makes it a federal crime for persons to knowingly or intentionally manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance, unless it is authorized. Section 1306.04(a) authorizes registered doctors to dispense controlled substances through prescriptions, but only if the prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose. The physicians argued because the drugs were dispensed pursuant to valid prescriptions, dispensation of the drugs was lawful. And, even if not, they did not knowingly or intentionally deviate from the statutory standard. Both doctors were convicted. The Circuit courts affirmed the doctor’s convictions. The doctors filed for petitions for hearing the Court of United States Supreme Court. At issue was what state of mind the Government is required to prove to convict doctors of violating Section 841. Specifically, was it sufficient for the Government to prove that a prescription was, in fact, not authorized or did it have to prove that the doctors knew or intended that the prescriptions were not unauthorized?
The United States Supreme Court reversed and vacated the rulings of the lower courts. It found that Section 841 requires the culpable mental state of “knowingly or intentionally” and a lack of authorization. Consequently, Section 841 prosecutions require the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner when the doctor(s) issued prescriptions to a patient.
- (Government Claims Act) Hospital patient’s letter, which failed to comply with presentation requirements under the Government Claims Act, constituted a claim for injuries, adequate to trigger healthcare provider’s duty to give notice of the insufficiencies. Timonthy Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (No. E075184 Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1934524 California Courts of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division Two Filed June 28, 2022)
Plaintiff wished to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a defendant Healthcare District. He appealed from a judgment denying his petition under Government Code section 946.6, in which he sought relief from the requirement in the Government Claims Act (section 810 et seq.) that he timely presented a claim to the Healthcare District before bringing a suit for damages. The appeals court reversed the judgment of the trial court finding that the plaintiff was not required to seek relief from the claim presentation requirement because he submitted a timely claim, and the trial court erred by ruling he had not done so. Although the plaintiff’s claim was deficient in certain respects, its submission triggered a statutory duty for the Healthcare District to notify plaintiff of the defects, and it failed to do so waived any defense as to the claim’s sufficiency. As such, the plaintiff should be permitted to file a complaint.
In so ruling, this appellate division took sides in a split of California appellate authority that has remained unresolved for decades. This split concerns whether petitioners seeking judicial relief from a claim requirement under section 946.6 may assert that they did present the public entity with a timely claim, or whether that argument may be raised only by filing suit and alleging compliance with claim requirements. This appellate division saw no sound reason why a petitioner should not be able to raise actual compliance in section 946.6 petition, or why the adjudicating court should be precluded from deciding that the submitted claim was compliant if there are no disputed issues of fact that need to be left for a jury’s determination.
Should you have any questions concerning these court decisions or desire a copy of any of them, please do not hesitate to contact our office.