Re: Marcia Clark v. State of California Dep’t. of Health Care Svs.
Superior Court No. 16CECG00018
Hearing Date: Wednesday February 21, 2018 (Dept. 502)
Motions: Petitioner’s Motion to Extinguish or Strike Department of Health
Services’ Lien as to Marcia Clark (Welf. & Inst. Code § 14124.76.)
Tentative Ruling:
To deny.
Explanation:

Petitioner seeks to extinguish or reduce the Department of Health Care Service’s lien on her personal injury claim to the extent it seeks more than $31,432.33 on the grounds that the overall damages sustained by Petitioner were between $750,000 and $1 million, that she compromised and received a settlement of $500,000, and that the lien of the Department exceeds the amount to which it is legally entitled. The Department opposes, arguing Petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid basis for reducing the lien.

Recovery of the lien from an injured party’s action or claim is limited to that portion of the settlement that represents payment for medical expenses or medical care provided on behalf of the injured party. (Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 14124.76.) When “a debtor asserts that the amount the creditor demands in repayment of a loan exceeds that permitted by law, the assertion is ordinarily regarded as an affirmative defense for which the debtor bears the burden of proof.” (McMillian v. Stroud (2008)166 Cal.App.4th 692, 701.)

Petitioner relies heavily on Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn (2006) 547 U.S. 268, which held that the Arkansas Dept. of Health Services was only entitled to recover the portion of the settlement that represents medical expenses.

Based on the parties’ stipulation, the court determined that the Department there was only entitled to recover one sixth of the settlement based on the percentage of the plaintiff’s total settlement compared to the stipulated value of the case.

Here, however, the parties have not stipulated to the value of the case. While Petitioner presents evidence in the form of her attorney’s declaration that the value of Petitioner’s case was $750,000 to $1 million and that she compromised it because of a defense argument that she would have required a knee replacement in any event, no evidence beyond that bare conclusion has been offered. The court finds this evidence insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden of proof. Rather, it appears to the court that all of Petitioner’s past medical expenses of $77,891.51 were accounted for in the total settlement of $500,000 because, while claims for past medical expenses are verifiable

15

and concrete, any claims for future medical expenses and/or past or future pain and suffering are somewhat untethered and speculative.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling DSB 2-20-18
Issued By: ____ on .
(Judge’s initials) (Date)