Olszewski

As a participant in the federal Medicaid program, the State of California has agreed to abide by certain requirements imposed by federal law in return for federal financial assistance in furnishing medical care to the needy. (See Harris v. McRae (1980) 448 U.S. 297, 308 [ 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784 ].) The California Medical Assistance Program, Medical (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 14000-14198), 1 “represents California’s implementation of the federal Medicaid program . . . .” (Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center v. Belshé (1996) 13 Cal.4th 748, 751 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 919 P.2d 721 ].) In implementing Medi-Cal, our Legislature has enacted statutes authorizing a health care provider to assert and collect on a lien for the full cost of its services against “any judgment, award, or settlement obtained by” a Medicaid beneficiary. (§ 14124.791; see also § 14124.74.)

*805 The Legislature enacted these statutes to alleviate the fiscal difficulties faced by health care providers who, due to Medi-Cal payment limits, did not receive full compensation for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries (see Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 812 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats.…

I agree with the majority that California statutes purporting to authorize care providers’ liens against Medi-Cal patients’ monetary recoveries from third parties (Welf. & Inst. Code, *833 §§ 14124.74, 14124.791) are unenforceable because they conflict with federal law, and that plaintiffs tort claims for relief based on defendant’s having filed and asserted such liens are barred by the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). Under our precedents, moreover, that privilege appears applicable to plaintiffs cause of action under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as well as to her causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and trespass to chattels. (Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1200-1204 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ]; Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355, 364-365 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 143 , 696 P.2d 637 , 49 A.L.R.4th 417 ].)

I do not agree, however, with the majority’s creation of a broad due process “safe harbor” for actions taken in reliance on preempted—and therefore invalid—state laws. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 829-830.) In Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20…

I have signed the majority opinion, but I have done so on the understanding that the opinion does not create the overbroad “safe harbor” to which Justice Werdegar’s concurring opinion properly objects. I agree with Justice Werdegar that a business whose ongoing practices are found unlawful or unfair could not complain, on fairness grounds, “of being enjoined from further such violations” in the future, even if the business’s past conduct was based on what seemed to be an enforceable state law. (Cone. opn. of Werdegar, J., post, at p. 833.) And I also agree that a grant of monetary relief “is not necessarily unfair merely because the defendant business believed in good faith that its practice was lawful.” (Ibid.) In my view, the majority opinion need not, and should not, be read as inconsistent with these propositions.

As a participant in the federal Medicaid program, the State of California has agreed to abide by certain requirements imposed by federal law in return for federal financial assistance in furnishing medical care to the needy. (See Harris v. McRae (1980) 448 U.S. 297, 308 , 100 S.Ct. 2671 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784 .) The California Medical Assistance Program, Medi-Cal (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 14000-14198), [1] "represents California's implementation of the federal Medicaid program ..." ( Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center v. Belshé (1996) 13 Cal.4th 748, 751 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 919 P.2d 721 .) In implementing Medi-Cal, our Legislature has enacted statutes authorizing a health care provider to assert and collect on a lien for the full cost of its services against "any judgment, award, or settlement obtained by" a Medicaid beneficiary. (§ 14124.791; see also § 14124.74.)

The Legislature enacted these statutes to alleviate the fiscal difficulties faced by health care providers who, due to Medi-Cal payment limits, did not receive full compensation for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries (see Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 812 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats.1985,…