 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kahrs v. Sanchez11/5/1997
>
{34} As in Larson, the statutory lien appears to be a common means of ensuring complete reimbursement of medicaid expenditures in every case. See, e.g., Riddell v. California, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 555, 556-57 (Ct. App. 1996); Department of Med. Assistance v. Hallman, 417 S.E.2d 218, 219-20 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (finding lien rights waived); Shweiri v. Commonwealth, 622 N.E.2d 612, 613 n.2 (Mass. 1993) (1992 statute cited); Dale v. Gubin, 879 S.W.2d 699, 700-01 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994); Turnbow v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, Welfare Div., 853 P.2d 97, 99 (Nev. 1993); State, Dep't of Human Servs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 744 P.2d 186, 187 (Okla. 1987) (statute cited); King v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs., 921 P.2d 1326, 1327-28 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) (statute cited). These cases illustrate the options that were available to our legislature if mandatory reimbursement in full were intended.
{35} Considering the purpose of Section 27-2-28(G), its relation to our statutory scheme, existing law at the time of its enactment, corresponding federal law, and other states's construction of similar legislative schemes, we conclude that "assignment" conveys no right to full reimbursement in every case. Therefore, in this case, the trial court did not err in reducing HSD's claim for reimbursement under the facts presented.
6. Plaintiff's damages.
{36} We summarily address HSD's claim that the trial court's finding on damages is not supported by substantial evidence. The claim presents a question of law as opposed to an issue of fact. See . As HSD notes, the trial court based its finding on the stipulation. Although HSD did not stipulate to the amount, HSD was a party to the stipulation. The stipulation states that "the parties desire to stipulate to certain facts for the purpose of permitting the court to resolve the claim for equitable reduction of the subrogation claim[.]"
{37} During the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, HSD indicated that it was willing to attempt a stipulation on the facts to avoid a trial on damages because HSD maintained that the actual amount of damages was immaterial to its claim. The stipulation enabled the court to enter final judgment and to expedite HSD's appeal on the law. Although HSD submitted proposed findings of fact and Conclusions of law in support of its legal position, HSD did not address the matter of damages.
{38} By declining to pursue its right to an evidentiary hearing on damages, we conclude that HSD waived its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the court to reduce HSD's claim. See (discussing waiver of challenge to sufficiency of evidence when party failed to tender specific finding or otherwise call trial court's attention to the problem); cf. ) (party may waive disqualification of Judge by taking actions inconsistent therewith).
{39} Alternatively, we conclude that the stipulation was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding because it was the only evidence available to the court once the parties agreed not to proceed to trial. Without this evidence, the trial court could not have proceeded to judgment. Thus, the finding is affirmed. See (reviewing court will not disturb on appeal factual findings supported by substantial evidence).
Conclusion
{40} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court.
{41} IT IS SO ORDERED.
BENNY E. FLORES, Judge
WE CONCUR: RUDY S. APODACA, Judge & MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
|