Adkins v. Collens
444 P.3d 187
Alaska2019Background
- In 2009 Jesse Collens, a ventilator-dependent C‑1 quadriplegic, contracted with Maxim for in‑home nursing; Maxim was a licensed Alaska home health agency.
- In March 2012 Maxim's Alaska office manager, Alaina Adkins, sought to discharge Collens after internal compliance concerns; Maxim's policies and state regs required a physician order for discharge and protected a patient’s right not to be discharged except for specific reasons.
- Maxim's clinical director recertified Collens on March 23 and noted "discharge is not warranted," yet Maxim produced and Adkins delivered a discharge letter falsely representing physician and care‑coordinator approval and listing alternative providers when none were available.
- Collens sued for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, IIED, and violations of Alaska's UTPA; after trial the superior court awarded compensatory contract damages, trebled under the UTPA, IIED damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees (total judgment ~ $20.38M).
- On appeal Maxim challenged UTPA liability, preclusion of its expert witnesses, excessiveness of damages, and the attorney‑fee award. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed all rulings except it reversed and remanded the attorney‑fee award as unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collens) | Defendant's Argument (Maxim) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maxim is liable under the UTPA for false statements and discharge practices | UTPA applies to deceptive acts and Maxim's misrepresentations and policy noncompliance fit the Act | Conduct is regulated by statute/regulation (statutory exemption) or is a healthcare decision exempt from UTPA (entrepreneurial/medical services) | Affirmed: UTPA applies; Maxim did not prove regulations prohibit the specific conduct and the discharge was a business decision, not protected medical‑practice conduct |
| Whether Maxim waived or preserved its UTPA exemption defenses | N/A (Collens argued Maxim waived defenses) | Maxim preserved and may expand defenses on appeal (statutory and healthcare exemptions) | Both defenses were adequately preserved for review; court considered them and rejected them |
| Whether exclusion of Maxim's expert testimony on damages was an abuse of discretion | N/A (Collens moved to strike for late disclosure) | Exclusion was erroneous and prejudicial | Affirmed: Maxim waived the claim by failing to file reports and trial court acted within discretion under Rules 26/37 to exclude undisclosed experts |
| Whether the attorney's fee award under AS 45.50.537(a) may be based on plaintiff's contingency agreement (percentage of recovery) | UTPA intended to provide "full reasonable attorney fees," possibly including contingency fee as measure of full recovery | Fee should be limited to modified lodestar (reasonable hours × reasonable rate, with possible adjustment) | Reversed on fees: court must use modified lodestar to calculate "full reasonable attorney fees," though contingency risk may be considered in lodestar or adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Interstate Constr., LLC v. Pac. Diversified Invs., Inc., 279 P.3d 1156 (Alaska 2012) (statutory exemption requires regulation that prohibits the specific complained‑of conduct)
- Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240 (Alaska 2007) (UTPA treble damages do not preclude recovery of common‑law punitive damages)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate as starting point for fee awards)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (standards limiting use of enhancements to lodestar; Supreme Court’s caution on contingency enhancements)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1992) (criticizes contingency enhancements as duplicative of lodestar)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (factors subsumed in lodestar; limitations on enhancements)
- Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182 (Alaska 1980) (existence of a statute prohibiting conduct alone does not satisfy the UTPA statutory exemption prong)
- Haynes v. Yale‑New Haven Hosp., 699 A.2d 964 (Conn. 1997) (example of jurisdictions limiting consumer‑protection statutes to entrepreneurial/business aspects of professional services)