Advocacy
Without Borders: We Are One Community
News Impacting People
With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs, Seniors &
others, including
Asian Pacific Islanders, Latinos, African Americans communities
across California and beyond
Goes out to over 45,000
people, organizations, policy makers across California
Report #072-2008 -
April 16, 2008 - Early Wednesday
California Legislature
* SB 1136 by Alquist Amended
* Impact On People With Disabilities &
Seniors
New Amendment Would Make It Unlawful Under Civil Code To
Charge "Unreasonable Fee" For Any Person to Help Another
Person Obtain Medi-Cal, IHSS, Regional Center Medicaid Waivered
Services and Other Public Social Services or To Aid in Fair Hearings
and Other Related Matters
SACRAMENTO (CDCAN) - SB 1136, dealing with public social
services by Sen. Elaine Alquist (Democrat - Santa Clara, 13th
District) was amended April 14, which would make it unlawful under
the State's Civil Code for any person to charge an
"unreasonable fee" to help another person obtain various
public social services, including Medi-Cal, In-Home Supportive
Services, CalWORKS, and Regional Center Medicaid waivered services.
[For a copy of this latest amendment, go to the CDCAN website at
www.cdcan.us].
The amendment deletes the parts of the bill that made it a crime
that could be prosecuted by county district attorneys.
The scheduled April 15th hearing before the Senate Public Safety
Committee was cancelled, and the bill after it was amended, was
pulled from that committee and referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee for hearing. The bill is sponsored by the County of
Santa Clara in response to reports of financial abuse of people -
especially seniors by persons who claimed could help them qualify
for various public social services, for large fees.
Alquist is chair of the Senate Human Services Committee and the
Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health, Human Services, Labor and
Veteran Affairs and has authored many bills dealing with protection
of seniors from financial and physical abuse, and also nursing home
and health facility reforms.
Next Steps
No hearing date has been set yet. Because the bill no longer
creates a new crime, the bill no longer is under the jurisdiction of
the Senate Public Safety Committee and is no longer - at this point
- considered a "fiscal bill" and will not be referred to
the Senate Appropriations Committee if it passes out of Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Who This Impacts
* The intent of the bill is to provide some level of protection
under the civil code for seniors and people with disabilities and
others who believe they are eligible for - are already receiving,
a wide range of public social services administered (or
supervised) by the Department of Health Care Services (Medi-Cal
and Medicaid waivered programs like Adult Day Health, regional
centers waivered services, etc), Department of Public Health,
Department of Social Services (CalWORKS, In-Home Supportive
Services, SSI/SSP and more).
* This bill - especially the earlier versions - impacted persons
and potentially under certain circumstances, possibly
community-based organizations (depending if and how they charged
fees or reimbursements for their services) who provided help or
assistance to persons needing help on eligibility for public
social services.
* Earlier versions of the bill made it a crime that could be
prosecuted by the county district attorney. The latest
version of the bill makes it unlawful under the civil code - which
means a person could be sued by another person (or possibly an
organization that had standing in the lawsuit) for charging an
"unreasonable fee" under the conditions listed in the
bill and could be awarded, treble damages if they won the lawsuit.
Lawyers are not exempted.
Earlier Version of Bill Banned Charging of Any Fees by
Non-Lawyers
* The introduced version of the bill originally would have
prohibited the charging of any fees by any non-lawyer to help
another person obtain public social services (or help them in other
ways, including fair hearings, redeterminations). The original
version of the bill exempted lawyers - members of the State Bar.
* A later version of the bill, prohibited non-lawyers from charging
an "unconscionable fee" but still exempted lawyers - an
issue that was strongly opposed by some senior and disability
advocates. Others supported it. In response, Sen.
Alquist agreed that the bill should not exempt anyone and promised
to amend the bill to reflect that after it passed out of Senate
Human Services Committee on April 8.
* The April 14th version now deletes all references to creating a
new crime, and instead makes it unlawful in the civil code for
anyone to charge an "unreasonable fee" as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1770 of the
Civil Code is amended to read:
1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person
in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or
lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful: [CDCAN
note: existing state law in the civil code has 23 previously enacted
unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices. SB 1136 would add a 24th as follows:]
(24) (A) Charging or receiving an unreasonable fee
to prepare or aid an applicant or recipient in the procurement,
maintenance, or securing of public social services.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following
definitions shall apply:
(i) "Public social services" means those
activities and functions of state and local government administered
or supervised by the State Department of Health Care Services, the
State Department of Public Health, or the State Department of Social
Services, and involved in providing aid or services, or both,
including health care services and medical assistance, to those
persons who, because of their economic circumstances or social
condition, are in need of that aid or those services and may benefit
from them.
(ii) "Unreasonable fee" means a fee that is
exorbitant and disproportionate to the services performed. Factors
to be considered, when appropriate, in determining the
reasonableness of a fee, are based on the circumstances existing at
the time of the service and shall include, but not be limited to,
all of the following:
(I) The time and effort required.
(II) The novelty and difficulty of the services.
(III) The skill required to perform the services.
(IV) The nature and length of the professional relationship.
(V) The experience, reputation, and ability of the individual
providing the services.
SEC. 2. Section 1780 of the Civil Code
is amended to read:
[CDCAN Note: the following is existing State law - SB 1136
would add a provision to this section - see below (c)(2)]
1780. (a) Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of
the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice
declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against
that person to recover or obtain any of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages
in a class action be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) An order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices.
(3) Restitution of property.
(4) Punitive damages.
(5) Any other relief that the court deems proper.
(b) (1) Any consumer who is a senior citizen or a disabled person,
as defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 1761, as part of
an action under subdivision (a), may seek and be awarded, in
addition to the remedies specified therein, up to five thousand
dollars ($5,000) where the trier of fact does all of the following:
(A) Finds that the consumer has suffered substantial physical,
emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant's
conduct.
(B) Makes an affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the
factors set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3345.
(C) Finds that an additional award is appropriate.
(2) Judgment in a class action by senior citizens or disabled
persons under Section 1781 may award each class member that
additional award if the trier of fact has made the foregoing
findings.
[CDCAN note: following is the change to this section (Section
2) of the Civil Code proposed by SB 1136:]
(c) Whenever it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that a defendant has engaged in conduct in violation of paragraph
(24) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770, in addition to all other
remedies otherwise provided in this section, the court shall award
treble damages to the plaintiff.
URGENT!!!
YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS NEEDED!
Townhall
Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot
continue without your help!