California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin
The opinion filed July 29, 2014, 228 Cal.App.4th
514, __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ in the above cause is modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 5, immediately following the first sentence of the second paragraph (228 Cal.App.4th 522, advance report, 1st full par., line 4), insert as the next sequentially numbered footnote the following text and adjust numbering of all subsequent footnotes accordingly:
In reaching this conclusion, we do not express any opinion on collections carried out by a commercial health plan in administering federally funded programs (such as Medicare) that may specify who should be deemed the primary payer for treatments caused by third-party tortfeasors. (See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii).)
On page 25, delete the text of footnote 9 [228 Cal.App.4th 537. advance report, in. 9], and replace it with the following:
We note the summary judgments in favor of AAA and Allstate included claims pertaining to emergency room patients covered by health care service plans other than Kaiser. In the trial court, Dameron argued summary judgment could not be granted in favor of AAA and Allstate because their motions did not seek to dispose of all claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AAA and Allstate concluding claims involving Kaiser patients failed for lack of a debt underlying Dameron’s breach of contract claims. As to the non-Kaiser patients, the trial court found Dameron had not amended the complaint to include these claims. Although Dameron argues the trial court erred in determining the non-Kaiser patient claims were barred due to the statute of limitations, Dameron does not address the trial court’s conclusion that the complaint had not been amended to include these claims. Thus, even if Dameron could show the trial court erred on the statute of limitations issue, we would affirm nonetheless on this separate ground. A single, valid basis for a trial court’s decision suffices to affirm dismissal of an
action. (Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 522].) Accordingly, we affirm also as to the trial court’s dismissal of claims premised on patients not covered by Kaiser.
On page 26 [228 Cal.App.4th 538, advance report, 1st par.], change the disposition to read:
The judgment is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
In light of these modifications, which do not change the judgment, the petitions for rehearing filed by Dameron Hospital Association and ...