Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04701, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04701    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Emma Silva, by and through her guardian ad litem Elizabeth Silva, Elizabeth Silva, and Josue Silva filed this action against Defendants Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Ikea Property, Inc., Ikea U.S. West, Inc., and Does 1-100 for premises liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

On October 21, 2022, Defendants Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Ikea Property, Inc., and Ikea U.S. West, Inc. filed an answer. 

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. 

On February 27, 2024, Petitioner Elizabeth Silva (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition for approval of minor’s compromise to be heard on March 5, 2024. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action of Emma Silva (“Claimant”). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid. [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338; see Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) 

To obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) 

DISCUSSION         

The Court has reviewed the additional information that Petitioner has provided.  The new information is useful.  However, it raises some additional questions. 

The December 7, 2023 letter from the Department of Health Care Services states that Claimant received $10,708.96 in benefits.  Similarly, Section 12b(4) of the petition states that Medi-Cal paid $10,704.96 in medical expenses.  

However, the Declaration of Sebastian Russell and accompanying chart state that Medi-Cal paid $13,977.62 of Claimant’s medical expenses ($9,252.62 and $4,372.44 to Children’s Hospital and $352.74 to Burbank Paramedic).  Likewise, Section 12a(3) of the petition states that $13,977.62 of Claimant’s medical expenses were paid.    

The discrepancy is important because if the correct figure is $10,708.96, then the settlement does not pay or reimburse all of the medical expenses that have not been reduced or waived.  Thus, Section 12a(1) of the petition states that Claimant’s total medical expenses were $194,260.72.  Section 12a(3) states that, of this amount, $178,061.28 was subject to reduction.  (However, if the reductions listed in the Sebastian Russell declaration are combined, the figure in Section 12a(3) would be $179,589.54.)  The Declaration of Sebastian Russell acknowledges that this “[leaves] a balance of $14,671 [or $14,671.18].”  (Russell Dec. ¶ 10.) 

As noted, the Sebastian Russell declaration states that Medi-Cal “paid $13,977.62 [of the $14,671], leaving a balance of $693.43 . . . .” (Russell Dec. ¶ 10.)  The declaration states that the $693.43 balance represents amounts that DHCS/MediCal owes to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. 

However, if Medi-Cal paid $10,708.96, then $3,268.79 (the difference between $14,671.18 and $10,708.96, less the $693.43 which Russell states that DHCS/Medi-Cal owes to Children’s Hospital) in medical expenses would remain unaccounted for.  The Court cannot approve a minor's compromise unless it shows that all medical expenses that have not been reduced or waived will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  

Petitioner should explain the reason for the different figures given for the Medi-Cal payments ($10,708.96 versus $13,977.62) and provide documentation to support the argument that Medi-Cal paid more than $10,708.96. 

CONCLUSION    

          The Court DENIES the petition filed by Petitioner Elizabeth Silva on February 27, 2024, without prejudice. 

          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.