Every person, partnership, association, corporation, public entity, or other institution or body maintaining a hospital licensed under the laws of this state which furnishes emergency and ongoing medical or other services to any person injured by reason of an accident or negligent or other wrongful act not covered by Division 4 (commencing with Section 3201) or Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 6100) of the Labor Code, shall, if the person has a claim against another for damages on account of his or her injuries, have a lien upon the damages recovered,
or to be recovered, by the person, or by his or her heirs or personal representative in case of his or her death to the extent of the amount of the reasonable and necessary charges of the hospital and any hospital affiliated health facility, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, in which services are provided for the treatment, care, and maintenance of the person in the hospital or health facility affiliated with the hospital resulting from that accident or negligent or other wrongful act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case:
Newton v. Clemons, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
Newton v. Clemons, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “1 The County’s brief makes explicit that it relies exclusively on the Hospital Lien Act, Civil Code section 3045.1 et seq., for its claimed lien.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Huff, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “(Civ. Code, § 3045.1, italics added.) “The lien shall apply whether the damages are recovered, or are to be recovered, by judgment, settlement, or compromise.”
Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Farmers Ins. Grp. of Cos., 932 P.2d 210 (Cal. 1997).
· cites it 2× “In clear and unmistakable prose, Civil Code sections 3045.1 through 3045.5, as originally enacted in 1961, [1] state as follows: A hospital may perfect an emergency-care lien against an injury victim's damage recovery in excess of $100.”
Nishihama v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“Civil Code section 3045.1 provides, in relevant part, that any designated hospital that has provided medical service “to any person injured by reason of an accident or negligent or other wrongful act.”
Bermudez v. Ciolek, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“The hospital was required to prove “the reasonable and necessary charges” (Civ. Code, § 3045.1) as part of its case-in-chief (Huff, at pp.”
Parnell v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 109 P.3d 69 (Cal. 2005).
“(Civ. Code, § 3045.1.) Both statutes limit only the “copayment amounts” recoverable by a health care provider pursuant to contract.”
Stone v. Ctr. Trust Retail Props., Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “1; Civ. Code, § 3045.1.) Urging us to disregard the lien as insufficient to establish its own reasonableness by itself, Center Trust asks that we substantially reduce Stone's recovery in the amount of about $100,000.”
Weston Reid, LLC v. Am. Ins. Grp., Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 940 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “shall, if the person has a claim against another for damages on account of his or her injuries, have a lien upon the damages recovered, or to be recovered, by the person, .”
Swanson v. St. John's Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2821 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “John’s Regional Medical Center, Pleasant Valley Hospital, and Catholic Healthcare West.”
Ochoa v. Dorado, 228 Cal. App. 4th 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“4th 1463 , stated that the amount of a medical provider’s lien pursuant to the Hospital Lien Act (Civ. Code, § 3045.1 et seq.) could not exceed the “ ‘reasonable and necessary’ ” charges for the services provided.”
Cnty. of San Bernardino v. Calderon, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
“(Civ. Code, §§ 3045.1, 3045.2.) (All further statutory citations refer to the Civil Code unless another code is specified.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.