Yebba v. AHMC Healthcare CA4/3
G058817
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Yebba sought emergency-room treatment at AHMC Anaheim and was later charged a separate emergency-room visit fee (a “surcharge”) in addition to itemized treatment charges.
- Yebba sued on behalf of himself and a putative class under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging the Hospital failed to disclose the ER visit fee before treatment and that he would have sought cheaper care if informed.
- The Hospital relied on Health & Safety Code § 1339.51 (chargemaster posting/availability and notice requirements) as the statutory disclosure framework; Yebba did not allege the Hospital failed to comply with those statutory notice requirements.
- The trial court sustained the Hospital’s demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, dismissing UCL, CLRA, and declaratory relief claims; judgment of dismissal entered.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: the Legislature balanced disclosure burdens and required only chargemaster availability and specified notices; no duty existed to give individualized fee disclosures or additional notices beyond the statute, and Yebba’s CLRA theory did not fit the statutory subsections he invoked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hospital had a duty to disclose ER visit fees to patients before treatment (UCL/unfair) | Yebba: Hospital should disclose ER visit fee at registration or post ER-level fee signs so patients can choose alternatives | Hospital: Disclosure obligations are governed by Health & Safety Code § 1339.51; statutory availability of the chargemaster and required notices suffice | Court: No duty to provide individualized/advance fee disclosure beyond statutory regime; demurrer sustained and UCL claim fails |
| Whether nondisclosure was "fraudulent" or "deceptive" under UCL | Yebba: Concealment of the surcharge was deceptive and likely to mislead consumers | Hospital: It complied with statutory notice scheme; no active concealment alleged | Court: No deceptive practice shown where statutorily required disclosure procedure was not alleged to be violated |
| Whether failure to disclose violates CLRA (subds. (a)(5) and (a)(14)) | Yebba: Nondisclosure amounts to misrepresentation by omission (exclusive knowledge/active concealment) under Gutierrez exceptions | Hospital: No exclusive knowledge or active concealment; chargemaster availability satisfied statutory disclosure | Court: CLRA claims dismissed—plaintiff did not plead facts fitting the CLRA nondisclosure exceptions (exclusive knowledge, active concealment), and did not allege statutory notice was lacking |
| Whether declaratory relief was independently available | Yebba: Declaratory relief to adjudicate duty to disclose before treatment | Hospital: Declaratory cause duplicates statutory consumer claims | Held: Dismissed as dependent/redundant of UCL/CLRA claims; no abuse of discretion in denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (defines limits of UCL "unfair" prong and explains when statutory "safe harbor" precludes UCL claims)
- Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 236 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (hospital’s duty satisfied by chargemaster availability under § 1339.51; no requirement to disclose every individual charge in advance)
- Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, 19 Cal.App.5th 1234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (identifies circumstances where omission can violate CLRA: fiduciary duty, exclusive knowledge, active concealment, or misleading partial representations)
- Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (consumer-action unfairness must be tethered to specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory policy)
- Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 1993) (procedural example of courts rejecting attempts to "plead around" statutory privileges via UCL)