Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV04706, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV04706 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: C
AVILA v. CITY OF
DOWNEY
CASE NO.: 22STCV04706
HEARING: 03/14/24
#7
I.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Brentwood Samimi Orthopaedic Group’s Response to Business Records
Subpoena is DENIED.
II.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Third-Party Pro-Med Spine’s Response
to Business Records is DENIED.
III.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Third-Party Beverly Hills Advanced
Pain & Spine’s Response to Business Records is DENIED.
IV.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Socal Imaging’s Response to Business
Records Subpoena is DENIED.
V.
Defendant CITY OF DOWNEY’s Motion to Compel
Third-Party Robertson Surgery Center’s Response to Business Records is DENIED.
VI.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Third-Party PT-RN
CARE’s Response to Business Records is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Defendant CITY OF DOWNEY (“Defendant”) issued subpoenas on various
medical providers, including: Samimi Orthopaedic Group; Pro-Med Spine; Beverly Hills Advanced Pain
& Spine; Socal Imaging; Robertson Surgery Center; and PT-RN Care. The
subpoenas essentially seek, regardless of date, documents and records:
·
Any and all documents, billing records, reports, and writings that
reflect the amounts billed to patients who were referred to each medical provider
by the Wilshire Law Firm; and
·
Any and all records that reflect payments made pertaining to
patients referred to each medical provider by the Wilshire Law Firm.
The subpoenas state that records produced may be redacted to comply with
privacy rules and regulations; and that it would be deemed compliance to
produce an accounting software spreadsheet or other document that lists all
accounts payable and accounts receivable for patients referred to each medical
provider by the Wilshire Law Firm.
“If a subpoena
requires the attendance of a witness…, the court, upon motion reasonably made
by any person described in subdivision (b)…may make an order quashing the
subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those
terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”
(CCP §1987.1(a).)
This personal injury
action was filed by Plaintiff ANGELA LEON AVILA on February 7, 2022. Plaintiff
alleges that she suffered injuries and damages caused by a slip and fall on a
premises owned/controlled by the Defendants. Plaintiff seeks to recoup
“repayment of all special damages incurred, including, but not limited to all
past and future wage loss, hospital and medical expenses.” (Complaint, Prayer
¶1.)
Defendant relies
upon Qaadir v. Figueroa (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 790, 808 for the
proposition that referral evidence is relevant to the question of the
reasonable value of the lien-physicians’ medical care because it may show bias
or financial incentives on the part of the lien-physicians. “If a lien-physician wants future referrals
from a lawyer and understands that the lawyer benefits from inflating a
client’s medical bills, that incentive might encourage the lien physician to
inflate its current bill to please the lawyer and win future referrals.” (Ibid.)
In Qaadir, the trial court erred by preventing defense counsel from
eliciting information at trial regarding whether Plaintiff’s Counsel referred
Plaintiff to lien-physicians. The
referral evidence at issue in Qaadir related to the referral itself, not
to billing records, let alone billing records of other patients. Defendant fails to cite any authority
requiring production of billing records under these circumstances. Notably, Defendant does not allege that the
medical providers from whom the records are sought have actually inflated their
bills. Absent such an allegation, any
value in billing records for non-party patients is speculative. The Court determines that Defendant has failed
to demonstrate that billing records for non-party patients are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.
The motions to
compel are DENIED.