Bhatt v. Department of Health Services
Decision Date | 05 October 2005 |
Docket Number | No. B179321.,B179321. |
Citation | 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335,133 Cal.App.4th 923 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Shaileshkumar BHATT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR the STATE of California, Defendant and Respondent. |
Norman L. Schafler, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Thomas R. Yanger, Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sanders and Susan A. Nelson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Shaileshkumar Bhatt appeals from the judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus following an audit of his dental practice by respondent The Department of Health Services for the State of California (the Department). Two questions are presented here: (1) Whether reports prepared by a fiscal intermediary on behalf of the Department qualify as official records pursuant to Evidence Code section 1280, and (2) whether a dentist working for a dentist enrolled in the Denti-Cal/Medi-Cal program must also be enrolled in the program in order to receive payments from Denti-Cal for services rendered. We conclude that the answer to both questions is yes. We affirm.
Appellant is a dentist who is enrolled as a Denti-Cal provider. Delta Dental, which is the "fiscal intermediary" for respondent's Denti-Cal/Medi-Cal program,1 conducted an audit of appellant's records for the period of February 1, 1997 through February 1, 2000, and issued an audit report on May 3, 2001. The audit report found that there was inadequate or no documentation for certain billed services and that some of the dentists rendering services in appellant's office were not enrolled in the Denti-Cal program as required, entitling respondent to recover payment for the services. In response to the audit, appellant filed a statement of disputed issues. The Office of Medi-Cal Dental Services conducted an "on the record" review and issued a report of findings. Appellant disputed the findings and requested a formal hearing.
The matter was heard before respondent's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert L. Carisoza over three days on April 3 and September 4 and 5, 2002. Oral and documentary evidence was received. On the first day of the administrative hearing, Darrell Carlson, an employee of Delta Dental, which is a private company, testified that he had worked as an on-site representative for just over three years and that his duties included comparing patient records with information contained in each Medi-Cal patient's claim detail report (CDR) during an audit. He testified that a CDR shows the services rendered to the patient and the amount paid for each service by Denti-Cal, which is a division of Delta Dental. The information as to what services were rendered is taken by Denti-Cal from the claim forms submitted by the provider to Denti-Cal. Copies of the CDRs in the record show that they are entitled "California Dental—Medicaid Management Information System, Department of Health Services, Surveillance and Utilization Review, Recipient Claim Detail Report." Mr. Carlson did not personally prepare the CDRs, but retrieved them from a database.
On the last day of the evidentiary hearing, appellant's counsel objected to admission of the CDRs on the ground that they did not qualify as a business record exception to the hearsay rule under Evidence Code section 1271. ALJ Carisoza accepted the documents into evidence as hearsay.
On June 23, 2003, ALJ Carisoza issued a proposed decision granting appellant's appeal. ALJ Carisoza found:
On August 28, 2003, the proposed decision was rejected by Chief ALJ Robert D. Tousignant, and the parties were invited to submit additional briefing. Both parties submitted written arguments. On October 27, 2003, ALJ Tousignant issued his final decision granting the appeal in part and denying it in part. ALJ Tousignant found that while the CDR did not qualify as a business record under Evidence Code section 1271, it did qualify as an official record under Evidence Code section 1280, and was therefore admissible. He also found that the dentist who actually performed the dental services billed to Denti-Cal must be enrolled in the program. Of the nine dentists employed by appellant, three were not enrolled in Denti-Cal at the time the services were rendered. ALJ Tousignant therefore upheld respondent's disallowance of services provided by the unenrolled dentists.
On November 25, 2003, appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court, in which he argued that the CDRs were inadmissible and asked the court to "enter judgment for Petitioner consistent with Judge Carisoza's Propose[d] Decision." In a supplemental brief, appellant argued that there was no statutory or other requirement that a dentist must be enrolled in Denti-Cal in order to bill for services rendered. Respondent opposed the petition and lodged the administrative record with the court. At the hearing on the petition, the trial court designated its tentative decision as the statement of decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the CDRs were admissible as official records, and that as a matter of law Medi-Cal cannot be billed for services rendered by unenrolled dentists. Judgment was filed on November 1, 2004, and this appeal followed.
Where, as here, the trial court was called upon to decide whether an agency's administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence, the function of the appellate court is the same as that of the trial court, that is, to review the administrative decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. (Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Education (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1331, 1340, 241 Cal.Rptr. 379.) (Id. at pp. 1340-1341, 241 Cal.Rptr. 379.) However, to the extent pure questions of law were decided by the trial court upon undisputed facts, a de novo standard will apply at the appellate level. (Anserv Ins. Services, Inc. v. Kelso (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 197, 204, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 357.)
Appellant contends that ALJ Tousignant's finding that the CDRs were admissible as official records cannot be upheld because there was no testimony given at the administrative hearing "to authenticate" these documents.
Evidence Code section 1280 provides:
(People v. Dunlap (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1477, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 204; People v. George (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 262, 274, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 750 [same].) " (Gananian v. Zolin (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 634, 639, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 384.) " (Id. at pp. 639-640, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 384.)
Under these principles, appellant's contention that it was necessary for a custodian or other qualified witness to testify as to the documents' identity and mode of preparation is without merit. On this basis alone we would conclude that appellant's appeal has no merit. In any event, we find that substantial evidence supports the administrative decision.
As to the first foundational requirement for an official record under Evidence Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Combs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
... ... Hence, any such contention has been waived. (Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 932-933, 35 ... ...
-
Banker's Hill Preserv. Group v. San Diego
...record contains "`relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support for a conclusion'" (Bhatt, supra, 133 Cal. App.4th at p. 928, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335), on the issue of whether a proposed project will create a significant effect on the As we will explain, we conclude t......
-
People v. Borzakian
...trustworthiness.’ ” ( Khaled, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. at p. 7, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 796, quoting Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335, additional internal quotations omitted.) Finally, the Khaled court concluded the exhibits did not fal......
-
People v. Borzakian
...trustworthiness.’ ” ( Khaled, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. at p. 7, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 796, quoting Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335, additional internal quotations omitted.) Finally, the Khaled court concluded the exhibits did not fal......
-
Table of Cases null
...Court, 41 Cal. App. 5th 518, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2d Dist. 2019)—Ch. 3-B, §16.2.3(2)(a) Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services, 133 Cal. App. 4th 923, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335 (2d Dist. 2005)—Ch. 3-B, §21.2.2; §21.4.2 Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016)—Ch. ......
-
Authentication
...1997). F.R.E. 803(8), covering government records does not require foundational testimony. Bhatt v . Department of Health Services, 35 Cal. Rptr.3d 335 (Cal. App. 2005). Court may admit official record or report without witness testifying to mode of preparation if court takes judicial notic......
-
Table of Cases
...Personal Injury Settlement Trust, 167 Ill.Dec. 1063, 588 N.E.2d 1193 (Ill.App. 1992), §7.400 Bhatt v. Department of Health Services , 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335, 133 Cal.App.4th 923 (2005), §21.426 Biggerstaff v. Nance, 769 S.W.2d 470 (Mo.App. 1989), §3.300 Bills v. Com., 851 S.W.2d 466 (Ky. 1993),......
-
Table of Cases
...Personal Injury Settlement Trust, 167 Ill.Dec. 1063, 588 N.E.2d 1193 (Ill.App. 1992), §7.400 Bhatt v. Department of Health Services , 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 335, 133 Cal.App.4th 923 (2005), §21.426 Biggerstaff v. Nance, 769 S.W.2d 470 (Mo.App. 1989), §3.300 Bills v. Com., 851 S.W.2d 466 (Ky. 1993),......