A recent court filing has brought to light a contentious dispute over emergency medical fees, raising significant questions about transparency and patient rights. On July 1, 2024, Farzam Salami filed a complaint against Los Robles Regional Medical Center in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six.
The case revolves around Salami's allegations that Los Robles Regional Medical Center improperly charged him an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) fee without proper disclosure or agreement. The saga began on August 8, 2020, when Salami received emergency services at Los Robles and signed a conditions of admission contract (COA), agreeing to pay for services "actually rendered" as listed in the hospital's chargemaster. However, he was billed $31,565.90, which included a "Level 5" EMS fee of $5,923.25. Although his bill was later discounted to $3,156.59, Salami claims he paid only part of this amount and disputes the EMS fee's legitimacy.
Salami argues that the EMS fees are not for services "actually rendered" but rather cover general operating costs. He contends that had he known about these fees beforehand, he would have sought treatment elsewhere. His initial lawsuit in December 2021 claimed breach of contract and sought declaratory relief against Los Robles' practice of charging EMS fees without explicit agreement.
The trial court sustained Los Robles' demurrer to Salami's First Amended Complaint (FAC), finding that it did not adequately state a breach of contract claim because Salami failed to allege that he had performed his part under the COA or was excused from doing so. Additionally, the court found that Los Robles had substantially performed its duties by providing emergency services.
Salami then amended his complaint to include claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), asserting that Los Robles had a duty to disclose its intent to charge an EMS fee. However, the trial court again sustained Los Robles' demurrer without granting leave to amend. The court concluded that no such duty existed under existing laws and regulations governing hospital pricing transparency.
The case draws on precedents like Saini v. Sutter Health and Gray v. Dignity Health, which held that hospitals are not required to disclose specific fees beyond what is listed in their chargemasters. These rulings emphasize that federal and state laws mandate hospitals provide emergency care without first addressing costs or payment capabilities.
Salami seeks judgment declaring Los Robles' practices unlawful and aims for injunctive relief preventing future undisclosed charges. He also seeks restitution for any improperly charged fees.
Representing Salami are attorneys from Carpenter Law and Barry L. Kramer’s office while King & Spalding represents Los Robles with Glenn Solomon leading their legal team. The case is presided over by Judge Matthew P. Guasco with appellate judges Baltodano, Yegan, and Cody concurring in the judgment affirming the trial court’s decision.