This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.

Lower Court

Stanislaus County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

John R. Mayne

Emergency room patient's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim war properly pleaded since he adequately alleged that medical center failed to provide material information about its evaluation and management services fee.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 5DCA

Cite as

2023 DJDAR 4323

Published

May 17, 2023

Filing Date

May 16, 2023

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed and Remanded

Case Fully Briefed

Oct. 13, 2022

Oral Argument

Apr. 20, 2023


JOSHUA NARANJO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

 

No. F083197

(Super. Ct. No. CV-21-001363)

California Court of Appeal

Fifth Appellate District

Filed May 16, 2023

 

 

Order Modifying Opinion And Denying Rehearing

[No Change In Judgement]

 

THE COURT:

It is so ordered that the opinion filed on April 28, 2023, be modified as follows:

1. At the beginning of page 4, after the quoted sentence "[T]he EMS Fee was designated as 40100038 ER ROOM LEVEL IV, which hides the fact that the EMS Fee is a separate fee not based on any specific item of treatment or service," add as footnote 3 the following, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes.

 

3 Medical Center argues Naranjo's use of the phrase "Evaluation and Management Services Fee" is, in essence, an acknowledgment the EMS Fee is for "services." It appears, however, Naranjo is using the name Medical Center gave to the fee in its Charge Description Master, discussed post.

 

2. On page 10, heading I.A. is modified to read as follows:

 

A. Medical Center's Request for Judicial Notice is Denied, in Part, and Granted, in part.

 

3. On page 11, the last paragraph beginning "Medical Center also requests" and on page 12, the first paragraph beginning "Finally, Medical Center also" are both deleted along with footnote 4 and replaced with the following paragraph which may require renumbering of subsequent footnotes:

 

"Medical Center also requests we judicially notice its 2019 list of 25 common outpatient procedures and 2019 Chargemaster, both of which were filed with OSHPD. We grant Medical Center's request as to both the 2019 list of 25 common outpatient procedures and 2019 Chargemaster. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (h), 453, 459 subd. (a).) However, in light of the opinions expressed herein, we do not view these two lists to be of consequence to our determination of this appeal.

 

4. On page 13, in the first paragraph following heading II., the phrase "fact or" is removed from the second quoted sentence and replaced with an ellipsis so that sentence now reads:

 

We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of ... law.

 

There is no change in the judgment. Respondent's petition for rehearing filed on May 11, 2023, is denied.

FRANSON, J.

 

WE CONCUR:

HILL, P. J.

SMITH, J.

 

#281033

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424