California Court of Appeal

In this case, plaintiff was uninsured when he received emergency healthcare services from defendant's hospital and signed an agreement to pay. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant failed to disclose that uninsured patients would be required to pay several times more than other patients receiving the same services, the charges set forth on the invoice were not readily available or discernable from the agreement, and the invoiced charges exceeded the reasonable value of the services. Judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second amended complaint without leave to amend on grounds that plaintiff had not adequately alleged "actual injury," and therefore lacked standing, is reversed, where: 1) although defendant had not begun any collection activity, the existence of an enforceable obligation, without more, ordinarily constitutes actual injury or injury-in-fact; and 2) to avoid the consequences of the pricing structure, defendant required plaintiff to apply for financial assistance, and the tangible burden of such an application process is more than the "identifiable trifle" required to confer injury-in-fact standing.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/06/2015
• Published 01/06/2015

Judges

• Perluss

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel