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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Quantum Meruit

Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia Inc., et al.

Published: Jan. 27, 2023 | Result Date: Apr. 19, 2022 | Filing Date: Jan. 10, 2022 |

Case number: 3:21-cv-09606-EMC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Edward M. Chen

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Barbara V. Lam
(Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman)


Defendant

Richard J. Decker
(Prospera Law LLP)

Diana E. Sfrijan
(Prospera Law LLP)

David E. Mead
(Prospera Law LLP)

Amir M. Nassihi
(Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP)


Facts

Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford is a hospital located in Palo Alto. It provided services to Patient D, who was allegedly enrolled in a health plan sponsored, administered, or financed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology (collectively, University Defendants). The plan provider was Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc. The hospital claimed it was owed compensation for the services rendered, and on January 10, 2021, it filed suit against the University Defendants and Blue Cross.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended it had provided services to Patient D; that it had not been paid for the services rendered; that Patient D was enrolled in a health plan sponsored and provided by the defendants; that the actions of the parties crated an implied-in-fact contract based upon the receipt and provision of services; and that the defendants breached this contract by not paying for the services Patient D received. Plaintiff further contended that it was entitled to recover from the defendants based on quantum meruit.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations. The University Defendants specifically contended that, as arms of the Georgia government, they were immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Result

The court granted the University Defendants' motion to dismiss.


#140134

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

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390