Kendall v. Scripps Health
16 Cal. App. 5th 553
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Kendall's second amended complaint challenges Scripps' self-pay billing under CLRA and UCL and seeks declaratory relief on contract interpretation.
- Plaintiff alleges Scripps bills self-pay patients at Charge Master rates, allegedly far above insurer or government reimbursement and above actual service costs.
- Kendall signed an Agreement for Services at Scripps, agreeing to pay billed charges per the Charge Description Master; he paid a $100 deposit and received treatment uninsured.
- Scripps moved to certify a class of self-pay emergency patients; the trial court denied certification for lack of predominance and ascertainability.
- Trial court found identification of class members would require individualized reviews across multiple systems (Eclipsys, File CD, etc.).
- On appeal, the court affirms, holding class treatment inappropriate for all identified claims and upholding denial of certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance for CLRA/UCL class | Kendall argues predominant common issues exist for contract interpretation and pricing. | Scripps argues individualized inquiries predominate; ascertainability and defenses defeat class. | No predominance; class certification properly denied. |
| Ascertainability of the self-pay class | Kendall contends feasible methods identify members from billing/payments data. | Scripps shows data reside in multiple systems; identification would be costly and non-feasible. | Ascertainability not satisfied; substantial individualized review required. |
| Declaratory relief vs. statutory claims | Kendall seeks standalone declaratory interpretation of price terms affecting the class. | Declaratory relief would be cumulative to CLRA/UCL and require individual determinations. | Declaratory relief not appropriate as class action; barred in context. |
| Use of FRCP standards for CA declaratory relief | Kendall urges FRCP Rule 23(b) analysis for declaratory relief. | California law governs; no need to import FRCP standards. | No FRCP-based revision; CA standards apply; no abuse in applying CA analysis. |
| Relation of statutory claims to potential class relief | Kendall asserts broad class-wide relief under CLRA/UCL could be defined by common issues. | Complex, individualized factors (coverage, discounts, charity) defeat common liability. | Courts cannot certify a class given substantial individualized issues and regulatory context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Rite Aid Corp., 226 Cal.App.4th 278 (2014) (proper inquiry for certification: whether theory is amenable to class treatment)
- Hale II, 232 Cal.App.4th 50 (2014) (ascertainability and predominant common issues in class actions)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (standard for predominance and class certification criteria)
- Nicodemus v. St. Francis Memorial Hospital, 3 Cal.App.5th 1200 (2016) (ascertainability considerations in class actions)
- Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc., 3 Cal.App.5th 1131 (2016) (Hospital Fair Pricing Policies Act; relevance to reasonableness and refunds)
- Children's Hospital v. Blue Cross of California, 226 Cal.App.4th 1260 (2014) (reasonable value of medical services and reliance on factual determinations)