Department of Health Services v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 23 July 1991 |
Citation | 283 Cal.Rptr. 546,232 Cal.App.3d 776 |
Parties | , 2 NDLR P 32 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent; TORRANCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Real Party In Interest. B056132. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In 1965, Congress established the federal Medicaid program, (Citizens Action League v. Kizer (9th Cir.1989) 887 F.2d 1003, 1005.)
At the federal level, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for the administration of federal grants-in-aid for state programs (42 U.S.C. § 1396). Immediate responsibility at the federal level has been assigned to the Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The California Department of Health Services (the Department) administers the program at the state level (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 10721; 22 C.C.R. § 50004), while county welfare offices (the County) provide most of the direct services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. (Welf & Inst.Code, § 14100 et seq.; 22 C.C.R. § 50101.)
In this case concerning the confidentiality of the Department's records with respect to applicants for Medi-Cal benefits, the Department seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain enforcement of a discovery order requiring disclosure of its records concerning an unsuccessful applicant for benefits, to Torrance Memorial Hospital (the Hospital), provider of health services to the applicant. We grant the petition.
On July 18, 1990, the Hospital filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate; and Complaint for Medi-Cal Reimbursement against the Department, alleging that from September 19, 1986 to October 8, 1986, the Hospital rendered medically necessary services to a patient, Dorothy C. (the patient), who was indigent and had no medical insurance.
The Hospital alleged that a year later, on September 3, 1987, the patient filed an application for Medi-Cal benefits, which was denied by the County. Following a fair hearing (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 10950 et seq.; 22 C.C.R. § 50951 et seq.), the Department denied the application in a decision dated July 26, 1988. 1
The Hospital claimed the patient was in fact entitled to receive full payment from the Department for the reasonable value of the medical services provided, which amounted to $34,836.80, and the Department was indebted to the Hospital in that amount.
In a second cause of action, the Hospital alleged the Department breached the contract pursuant to which the Hospital agreed to provide medical services to designated patient beneficiaries covered by the Medi-Cal Program, and the Department agreed to pay, upon submission of a claim for payment, the reasonable value of the medical services provided by the Hospital to such persons.
In a third cause of action, the Hospital sought equitable relief from any failure on its part to perform any covenant, condition or promise set forth in its agreement with the Department.
In its fourth cause of action, the Hospital sought a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5, compelling the Department to set aside its final decision denying the patient eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits.
The fifth and final cause of action sought an award of attorney fees.
The record shows that in the course of discovery, the Hospital demanded production of "[a]ll medical reports, memoranda, notes, Medi-Cal applications, Disability Evaluation Division (DED) Reports, MC 210, MC 221, MC 223, MC 220 and other documents relating to or referring to the claimant, Dorothy C. ..." The Department objected to this request on the ground, inter alia, that it "is prohibited by law, both state and federal, from disclosing documents containing confidential information regarding an applicant for Medi-Cal benefits without specific authorization from the applicant."
The Hospital's motion to compel further response to its demand was granted by the court following a hearing held on January 14, 1991.
The Department contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the Department to produce confidential documents in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14100.2 and federal regulations.
The Hospital contends the relevant statutes and regulations permit the release of Medi-Cal applicant information to a provider who has brought a civil action to (1) compel the Department to establish eligibility for the applicant to whom the provider has rendered medical services, and (2) obtain reimbursement from the Department for medical services to the applicant. The Hospital also contends a provider is not required to obtain a patient's consent to obtain access to such information. Finally, the Hospital contends there are compelling state interests necessitating the release of the information requested by the provider herein.
The trial court found "that Welfare and Institutions Code [section] 14100.2 provides that the information being asked about does fall into the category of confidential information, but that the exceptions set forth in [section] 14100.2 [subdivisions] (a) and (c) apply in this case to the type of discovery being undertaken by the plaintiff/petitioner."
Welfare and Institutions Code section 14100.2 provides, in subdivision (a): "All types of information, whether written or oral, concerning a person, made or kept by any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of any provision of this chapter, Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 14200), or Chapter 8.7 (commencing with Section 14520) and for which a grant-in-aid is received by this state from the United States government pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination other than for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Medi-Cal program." 2 (Fn. omitted; see 42 U.S.C. § 1396a, subd. (a)(7); 42 C.F.R., § 431.300.)
Welfare and Institutions Code, section 14100.2, subdivision (c) provides that 3 (See 41 C.F.R., § 431.302.)
In an Information Memorandum dated June 22, 1978, to state agencies administering medical assistance programs, the Health Care Financing Administration, which, as stated above, is the federal agency charged with overseeing state Medicaid programs, defined "administration of the program" as encompassing
(Conn. Dept. of Income Maint. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 532, 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214, 85 L.Ed.2d 577, 583-584; fn. omitted; see also Citizens Action League v. Kizer, supra, 887 F.2d 1003, 1007; Continental Ins. Co. v. Crockett (1985) 177 Cal.App.3d Supp. 12, 29, 223 Cal.Rptr. 772, and cases there cited.)
Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 50111, provides ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rcj Medical Services, Inc. v. Bonta', B143160.
....... No. B143160. . Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5. . August 23, 2001. . Rehearing .... The California Department of Health Services (DHS) administers Medi-Cal, the federal Medicaid ...808, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 527; Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 776, 782, 283 Cal.Rptr. 546; Frank v. Kizer ......
-
RCJ Medical Serv. v. Bonta
......2 Dist. 2001) . RCJ MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, . v. . DIANA BONTA`, as .... B143160 . IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA . SECOND APPELLATE ... APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. .... The State Department of Health Services (DHS) administers Medi-Cal, the federal ......
-
Family Health Ctrs. of San Diego v. State Dep't of Health Care Servs.
...... HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent.C090618Court of Appeal, ... decision, which also was denied.Family Health appeals the trial court's judgment denying its petition. Family Health contends that the ...( Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 776, 778, 283 Cal.Rptr. 546 ; 42 U.S.C. § ......
-
Brillantes v. Superior Court, B100434
......, informants told investigators Brillantes' clinic was established to bill Medi-Cal for services provided to "ghost patients" who never actually visited the clinic. The clinic would pay "drivers" ... These documents reflected health-care services provided Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and were relevant to the possibility that Brillantes ... [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 776, 778, 283 Cal.Rptr. 546.) . ......