Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV40871, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV40871 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff Katy Michell Miranda (“Plaintiff”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Rosa Miranda, filed this action against Defendants Keck Hospital of USC, USC Care Medical Group, Inc., USC Perinatal Group, University of Southern California, Giuliana S. Songster, M.D. (“Songster”), and Does 1-30 for negligence.
On October 27, 2020, the Court appointed Rosa Miranda to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
On January 12, 2021, Defendants University of Southern California and Songster filed an answer. On January 26, 2021, Defendant University of Southern California filed an amended answer to reflect its correct name, University of Southern California, individually and dba Keck Hospital of USC.
On January 26, 2021, Defendants Keck Medical Center of USC, individually and dba Keck Hospital of USC, erroneously sued and served as Keck Hospital of USC, and USC Care Medical Group, Inc., individually and dba USC Perinatal Group, filed an answer.
On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant USC Health System as Doe 21. On October 29, 2021, Defendant USC Health System filed an answer.
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On December 19, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner Rose Miranda’s petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s action.
On December 23, 2022, the Court signed an order approving the compromise. The order stated in part, “Until further order of the court, jurisdiction is reserved to determine a claim for a reduction of a Medi-Cal lien under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14124.76. The amount shown payable to the Department of Health Care Services in item 8a(4) of this order is the full amount of the lien claimed by the department but is subject to reduction on further order of the court upon determination of the claim for reduction.” (Order item 7; see also item 8b(3) [reserving jurisdiction over lien claim].)
On February 6, 2023, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition to approve the settlement of the Medi-Cal lien asserted by the Department of Health Care Services (“Department”). The petition was set for hearing on July 12, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to August 26, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST
Petitioner Rose Miranda (“Petitioner”) asks the Court to approve the settlement of the Department’s Medi-Cal lien.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner asserts that the Department initially contended that the Medi-Cal program provided $53,258.96 in benefits to Plaintiff. According to Petitioner, the Department later updated its benefits claim to $54,917.05.
Citing a May 20, 2024 letter from the Department, Petitioner contends that the Department has agreed to accept $53,258.96 in full and final satisfaction of its lien claim under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14124.70 et seq. Petitioner asks the Court to approve payment of this amount to the Department from the client trust account of Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Court grants the petition.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Petitioner Rose Miranda’s petition to approve the settlement of the Department of Health Care Services’ Medi-Cal lien. The Court finds that the Department of Health Care Services is entitled to recover $53,258.96 for the Medi-Cal services provided to Plaintiff Katy Michell Miranda. The Court orders The Law Offices of Michels & Lew to promptly distribute $53,258.96 from its client trust account to the Department of Health Care Services in satisfaction of its lien.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.