# Olszewski v. Scripps Health

> California Supreme Court · June 2, 2003 · 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788422

## Case

- **Full name:** CIMMARON OLSZEWSKI, a Minor, Etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 2, 2003
- **Citations:** 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1; 30 Cal. 4th 798; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 5822; 69 P.3d 927; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4566; 2003 Cal. LEXIS 3494
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by George
- **Judges:** George, Werdegar, Brown
- **Cited by:** 118 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788422

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that state statutes which permitted Medicaid providers to place liens and recover on claims against third parties who caused the Medicaid covered injuries were preempted to the extent the statutes permitted recovery beyond the Medicaid payment

## Opinion text

GEORGE, C. J., Concurring.
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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788422. Public record. Not legal advice.