In the case Terry D. Buller v. Sutter Health et al. (download as a PDF or as text), Buller claimed that the hospital?s ?billing invoices overstate the amount due because respondents have an undisclosed policy of discounting balances for consumers who pay promptly,? according to court documents. He believed that such an undisclosed policy violated the state?s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
The patient filed his complaint as a class action in February 2007 after he underwent treatment for a shoulder injury and paid for charges not covered by his insurance. He claimed that the hospitals have an undisclosed policy which allows patients who pay their bill within a specific period of time are eligible for discounts between 10 and 44 percent, but that the policy is hidden and is not provided on the face of the patient?s bill.
?The complaint further alleges that this practice violates the UCL and the CLRA because respondents do not inform consumers about the availability of the discount, and because consumers who pay in full in a timely manner without requesting a discount are not automatically given corresponding refunds,? according to court documents.
In May 2007 the trial court dismissed the case when it concluded that the hospitals had no responsibility to disclose their discount policy, and the appeal followed. The appeals court indicated the cases relied on by Buller for his claim did not assist his argument. In the final note the court said:
?it is fairly common for consumers to ask for and receive discounts on products and services. The amount of these discounts may vary depending on many factors. Arguably, requiring a business to state a discount on its initial invoice runs counter to the purpose of having discretionary discounts in the first place. Indeed, taken to their logical conclusion, appellant?s arguments would effectively require a business to disclose all discretionary discounts it might offer. While we sympathize with appellant?s frustration over his failure to benefit from respondents? discount policy, when viewed from the standpoint of consumers in general we believe respondents? practice is beneficial rather than harmful, inasmuch as they apparently are not required to offer privately insured patients any discounts whatsoever.
