Hale v. Sharp Healthcare CA4/1
232 Cal. App. 4th 50
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hale filed a class action against Sharp Healthcare challenging uninsured patients being charged higher emergency-service fees than insured/government patients.
- This is Hale’s second appeal after partial reversal in the first appeal and after class certification, Sharp sought decertification.
- The class defined covers August 11, 2003 to December 16, 2011 for uninsured emergency-department patients who signed Sharp’s admission agreement.
- Sharp’s Chargemaster and records show variability in payer status and potential misclassification, requiring individualized record review.
- Court decertified the class, finding lack of ascertainability and predominance due to numerous individualized issues, and Hale sought amendments but was denied.
- Disposition: the trial court’s decertification order was affirmed; Sharp awarded its appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of the class | Hale argues class defined as uninsured at treatment is ascertainable. | Sharp argues payer status changes during treatment hinder ascertainment. | Decertification upheld for lack of ascertainability. |
| Predominance of common issues over individualized issues | Hale contends common liability issues predominate. | Sharp argues significant individualized damages issues prevent class treatment. | Decertification upheld; damages require individualized inquiries. |
| Adequacy of Hale's proposed across-the-board reasonable-rate method | Hale proposes fixed percentage reductions (e.g., 140% of Medicare) classwide. | Sharp shows such method is not workable or uniformly reasonable. | Not accepted; cannot substitute for liability proof or manage damages classwide. |
| Motion to amend class definition post-decertification | Hale seeks amended/filtered class definition to cure ascertainability. | No new facts or law to cure decisional defects; amendments insufficient. | Denied; amendment did not cure essential problems. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. USA Cab Ltd., 176 Cal.App.4th 1333 (2009) (predominance requires common questions; damages may be individualized)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assoc., 59 Cal.4th 1 (2014) (class liability with common proof; beware sampling and manageability limits)
- Thompson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 217 Cal.App.4th 719 (2013) (manageability and pre-certification considerations; common issues vs. damages)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (2014) (officially recognizes predominance standards and class certification factors)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (class treatment when theory of liability is amenable to class resolution)
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (2002) (illustrates decertification/continuing oversight of class actions)