Tentative Ruling: Matter of Jessica Jazmine Bribiesca Guevara

Case Number

26PR00424

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 10/13/2026 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Minor’s Compromise

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Personal (in-person) appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.)

The following is noted for the court:

Medical Expenses.  Paragraph 12 asks for information regarding the claimant’s medical expenses that are to be reimbursed from proceeds of the settlement or judgment.  Medical expenses in this case are $10,946.31. A reduction was negotiated in the amount of $8,282.74, leaving $2,618.76 to be paid, which is 24% of the medical expenses.

According to SCOTUS, DHCS violates federal law when it places a statutory lien on any amount of a settlement or judgment above an amount specifically designated as reimbursement for medical costs.  (Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn (2006) 547 U.S. 268, 272.)  Thus, according to California cases decided after Ahlborn, DHCS cannot seek full reimbursement for Medi-Cal payments made for medical care required to treat injuries caused by a third-party tortfeasor, unless the recipient of the medical care recovers the full value of their tort claim. (See e.g. Lopez v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378; Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 260; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.) Thus in a settlement, DHCS’s recovery is limited to a percentage of the portion of the settlement apportioned for reimbursement of payments made for medical care, equivalent to the percent the settlement is to the value of the full claim amount:

 

Expressed mathematically, the Ahlborn formula calculates the reimbursement due as the total settlement divided by the full value of the claim, which is then multiplied by the value of benefits provided. (Reimbursement Due = [Total Settlement ÷ Full Value of Claim] × Value of Benefits Provided.)

 

(Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 821, 828.)

Attorney’s fees are too high.  Attorney’s fees are 31.3%.  California Rules of Court, rule 7.955 does not dictate a presumptively reasonable percentage or mathematical method of determining the appropriate attorney fees under a contingency agreement. Indeed, in adopting the rule, the Judicial Council explicitly preempted local rules regarding attorney fees for minors, many of which had established a baseline recovery of 25 percent.  (Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175.)