Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV47154, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47154    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff Saghar Yadegar, by and through her guardian ad litem Samira Yadegar (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Nestor R. Gonzalez, M.D. (“Gonzalez”), Zachary Barnard, M.D. (“Barnard”), Cedars-Sinai Health System (“Cedars-Sinai”), and Does 1-50 for medical negligence. 

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

On June 20, 2022, Gonzalez and Cedars-Sinai filed an answer. 

On June 21, 2022, the Court dismissed Barnard with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On December 28, 2023, the Court dismissed Gonzalez with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. 

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a revised petition to approve the compromise of a claim of a person with a disability, set for February 8, 2024. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner Samira Yadegar asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action of Plaintiff Saghar Yadegar. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The parties to a lawsuit may settle the claim of a person who lacks the capacity to make decisions only with court approval.  (Prob. Code., §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.) 

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) 

The person compromising the claim on behalf of the person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Medical expenses 

The Court cannot grant a petition unless it shows that the settlement proceeds will be used to pay or reimburse all medical expenses that have not been waived or reduced.  Here, Plaintiff evidently received extensive medical treatment as the result of Defendants’ alleged negligence.  (See, e.g., Dr. Lobatz’s report.) The petition, however, states that (1) Plaintiff incurred no medical expenses, (2) no medical liens exist, and (3) none of the settlement proceeds will be used to pay for or reimburse the payment of medical expenses.  (See, e.g., Sections 12a, 12b(5)(a)(i), 16e.) 

Counsel states that “[t]here are no liens from the California Department of Health Care Services or from Medicare, as Saghar Yadegar, to date, has never been a Medi-Cal or Medicare beneficiary.”  (Hodes Dec. ¶ 12.)  But Dr. Lobatz’s report refers to treatment provided by Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Northridge Hospital, Adventist Health (Ciox Health), USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, Ronald Reagan UCLA, Centre for Neuro Skills, Care Meridian, Neurorestorative Oso North, Rehabilitation Institute, and possibly other providers.  The petition does not state (1) the value of the services these and any other providers provided to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ alleged negligence, (2) whether any of these providers waived their right to payment or agreed to reduce the amount they would accept as payment for these services, or (3) whether an insurer or other person or entity paid some or all of these expenses and, if so, whether the insurer, person, or entity has waived or reduced the amount of reimbursement to which it is entitled. 

At the February 8, 2024 hearing, Petitioner's counsel stated that under Civil Code section 3333.1, subdivision (a), Plaintiff is not required to pay or reimburse the medical expenses she incurred.  Counsel also stated that he can provide a letter from the Rawlings Company waiving any claim to reimbursement of medical expenses.  The Court asked counsel to provide a supplemental declaration before the next hearing with a copy of the Rawlings Company letter and a short discussion of Civil Code section 3333.1's application to this case.

B.   Conservatorship case (21STPB11784) 

The petition asks the Court to set a review hearing re accounting and set a bond in the conservatorship case. 

In the conservatorship case (21STPB11784), the Court waived accountings because the estate had no assets.  The Court therefore did not set a review date and “order[ed] the Conservator shall not marshal any funds that come into the estate by way of civil litigation judgment or medical malpractice suit, without further order of the Court.” 

Petitioner may not receive the settlement proceeds or purchase an annuity until she receives an appropriate order from the conservatorship Court.  The conservatorship Court (not this Court) will set a review hearing for the first accounting and set bond based on anticipated proceeds.

At the February 8, 2024 hearing, counsel for the parties discussed possible time-frames for seeking an order from the conservatorship Court, the possible impact on the annuities that are part of the settlement, and other issues.  In addition, Court-appointed counsel for the conservatee in the conservatorship case (Plaintiff here) stated that the conservatorship Court is required to approve the proposal to pay $250,000.00 of the settlement amount to the conservator (Petitioner here).  Petitioner's counsel disagreed.  The Court invited counsel to submit briefing on the issue.

CONCLUSION 

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Saghar Yadegar’s claims filed by Petitioner Samira Yadegar to March 18, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The Court orders Petitioner to submit a supplemental declaration prior to the continued hearing that includes (1) a copy of the letter from the Rawlings Company, (2) a brief discussion of the application of Civil Code section 3333.1 to this case, and (3) the status of efforts to obtain an order from the conservatorship Court (a) authorizing Petitioner/conservator to receive settlement funds, (b) setting a bond, and (c) setting a first accounting review date.  Other parties may file responsive declarations.  In addition, the parties may submit briefing before the continued hearing on the proposal to pay $250,000.00 of the settlement amount to Petitioner.  

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.