Legal Opinion

Bondanza v. Peninsula Hospital & Medical Center

California Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1979No. S.F. 23841PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

The issue in this case is whether a hospital is guilty of an unlawful or unfair business practice (former Civ. Code, § 3369; now Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) if it assigns a patient’s account to an *263agency for collection and the agency’s commission of one-third of the balance due at the time of assignment is assessed against the patient on the basis of his promise to the hospital to pay a “reasonable . . . collection expense.” We conclude that this practice is impermissible under the principles set forth in Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1973) 9…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. City of Vernon v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Brunton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Ecco-Phoenix Electric Corp. v. Howard J. White, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Chastain v. BelmontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 1995
  4. Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative v. DIRECTV, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2003

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API