Solorzano

Solorzano v. Superior Court

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1135·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1289·92 Daily Journal DAR 14829·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9004
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1992B067045California5,308 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Ada Solorzano, America Rodriguez and Dolores Morales sued Family Health Plan, Inc. (FHP) for damages and injunctive relief, asserting violations of several California statutes arising from FHP’s allegedly unfair and misleading advertising practices in soliciting subscribers for its “Senior Plan,” a coordinated care plan designed for Medicare beneficiaries. The question before us is whether the federal statute regulating Medicare-qualified health maintenance organizations (HMO’s) preempts the field and deprives the states of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to these and other individuals dissatisfied with the manner in which an HMO solicits and enrolls Medicare recipients. Our answer is that it does not.

Facts

Plaintiffs, each of whom receives Medicare and Medi-Cal benefits, were visited at home by FHP’s agents, urged to enroll in FHP’s Senior Plan, and assured they could continue to be treated by their non-FHP physicians for a “nominal” additional charge. All three plaintiffs enrolled and agreed to assign their Medicare and Medi-Cal benefits to FHP. To their dismay, they discovered that, contrary to the agents’ representations, treatment by non-FHP physicians was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.