Medical liens.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2491 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 2491.
You're tracking AB 2491
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2491 — Medical liens.
Last action — From committee without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law provides, other things being equal, different liens upon the same property have priority according to the time of their creation, except as specified. Under existing law, a hospital and any hospital affiliated health facility that furnishes emergency and ongoing medical or other services to the victim of an accident or negligent or other wrongful conduct have a lien upon any damages recovered by the victim against a 3rd party in the amount of the services provided. Existing law provides that, if prescribed notice of the lien is given to the persons known to the hospital and alleged to be liable on the claim, any person so notified who is liable on the claim and who makes payment on the claim to the injured person or his or her attorney or representative without paying the lienholder is liable to the hospital for the amount of the lien, as specified. Under existing law, a county that furnishes hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment to a person who is injured or suffers a disease, under circumstances creating a tort liability upon a 3rd party to pay damages, has the right to recover the reasonable value of the care and treatment provided from the 3rd party, including a first lien against any judgment recovered by the injured or diseased person against the 3rd party to the extent of the reasonable value of the care and treatment provided, as specified. Existing law provides that the Director of Health Care Services has a right to recover the reasonable value of benefits provided to a beneficiary because of an injury for which a 3rd party or an insurance carrier is liable. Subject to the director's prior right of recovery and first lien, a medical care provider who has rendered services to the beneficiary and who has received payment under the Medi-Cal program is entitled to file a 2nd lien for services provided against any judgment, award, or settlement obtained by the beneficiary or director against the 3rd party, as specified. The liens of the director and any provider are payable after payment of litigation expenses and attorney's fees. Existing law provides that no lien asserted by a licensee of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, and no lien of a medical group or an independent practice association, to the extent it asserts or enforces a lien, for the recovery of money paid or payable to or on behalf of an enrollee or insured for medical services provided under a health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy, may exceed specified amounts. This bill would provide that the provider of any medical care or services to an injured party shall have an implied lien upon any damages recovered by that person by judgment, settlement, or compromise in the amount of the reasonable charges of the provider for that care or services, if the attorney for the injured party submits a claim for settlement purposes to an insurance company for that medical care or services on behalf of the injured party. The implied lien would be limited in application to only the attorney, and would not apply as to the insurance company.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/19/10 - Introduced Current pdf February 19, 2010
- AB2491 View text html
Action History
-
From committee without further action.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Referred to Com. on JUD.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
-
Introduced. To print.
Sponsors
- Adams · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Adams
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2491 do?
- Existing law provides, other things being equal, different liens upon the same property have priority according to the time of their creation, except as specified. Under existing law, a hospital and any hospital affiliated health facility that furnishes emergency and ongoing medical or other services to the victim of an accident or negligent or other wrongful conduct have a lien upon any damages recovered by the victim against a 3rd party in the amount of the services provided. Existing law provides that, if prescribed notice of the lien is given to the persons known to the hospital and alleged to be liable on the claim, any person so notified who is liable on the claim and who makes payment on the claim to the injured person or his or her attorney or representative without paying the lienholder is liable to the hospital for the amount of the lien, as specified. Under existing law, a county that furnishes hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment to a person who is injured or suffers a disease, under circumstances creating a tort liability upon a 3rd party to pay damages, has the right to recover the reasonable value of the care and treatment provided from the 3rd party, including a first lien against any judgment recovered by the injured or diseased person against the 3rd party to the extent of the reasonable value of the care and treatment provided, as specified. Existing law provides that the Director of Health Care Services has a right to recover the reasonable value of benefits provided to a beneficiary because of an injury for which a 3rd party or an insurance carrier is liable. Subject to the director's prior right of recovery and first lien, a medical care provider who has rendered services to the beneficiary and who has received payment under the Medi-Cal program is entitled to file a 2nd lien for services provided against any judgment, award, or settlement obtained by the beneficiary or director against the 3rd party, as specified. The liens of the director and any provider are payable after payment of litigation expenses and attorney's fees. Existing law provides that no lien asserted by a licensee of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, and no lien of a medical group or an independent practice association, to the extent it asserts or enforces a lien, for the recovery of money paid or payable to or on behalf of an enrollee or insured for medical services provided under a health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy, may exceed specified amounts. This bill would provide that the provider of any medical care or services to an injured party shall have an implied lien upon any damages recovered by that person by judgment, settlement, or compromise in the amount of the reasonable charges of the provider for that care or services, if the attorney for the injured party submits a claim for settlement purposes to an insurance company for that medical care or services on behalf of the injured party. The implied lien would be limited in application to only the attorney, and would not apply as to the insurance company.
- Who sponsors AB 2491?
- AB 2491 is sponsored by Adams.
- What is the current status of AB 2491?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 2491?
- Track AB 2491 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2491
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 2491
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →