Preview
THERESA A. BUCKLEY, State Bar No. 259701
DEBRA D. LEW, State Bar No. 114537
Office of Treasurer and Tax Collector — Legal Section
City and County of San Francisco
P.O. Box 7426
San Francisco, California 94120-7426
Telephone: (415) 554-4492 (Direct)
Facsimile: (415) 554-5010
E-Mail: Theresa.Buckley@sfgov.org
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Aitommey
OWEN J. CLEMENTS, State Bar #141805
Chief of Special Litigation
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3944
Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
E-Mail: Owen.Clements@sfcityatty.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
10/19/2018
Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMI!
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Case No. CGC-17-562329
FRANCISCO,
DECLARATION OF DEBRA LEW IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO’S OPPOSITION TO ERIC
vs. SMITH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
ERIC SMITH, et al., SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Defendants. Hearing Date: November 2, 2018
Hearing Judge: Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.
Time: 9:30 a.m,
Place: 302
Reservation No. 06181102-11
Date Action Filed: November 7, 2017
Trial Date: December 3, 2018
Attached Documents: Mem. of P. & A.; Separate
Statement; Objection to Evid.; Req. for Judicial
Notice; Decis. of Christy, Heil, Buckley, and Del
Rosario, [Proposed] Orders
Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s ue for Summary Judgment, S.A.1—
Case No. CGC-17-562329DECLARATION OF DEBRA LEW
I, DEBRA LEW, declare:
1, Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am the Assistant
Tax Collector Attomey for the San Francisco Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector and an
attorney of record for the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) in the above-entitled matter. I
have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.
2. On September 28, 2015, Defendant Eric Smith filed a personal injury lawsuit against
the property owner and property management company — Smith v. Sebastopol Garden Apartments,
LLC, Breman Arm, LLC, Gaetani Real Estate, et al. (San Francisco Sup. Ct. Case No. GCG-15-
548160). Defendant Eric Smith was represented by Scott Bonzell in this litigation.
3. On January 22, 2016, CCSF filed a Medical Reimbursement Lien (“MRL”) in that
litigation seeking $167,362.41, the balance of his hospital bill. (See Request for Judicial Notice of the
Medical Reimbursement Lien, Exhibit C).
4, Other than an inquiry from Mr. Bonzell about an overlapping bill and payment from
Blue Shield, Defendant and his counsel did not raise any objections (let alone pose any questions) for
over two years about the total bill, his coinsurance share, the treatment of the Zuckerberg San
Francisco General Hospital (“ZSFG”) as an out-of-network provider, or the reasonableness of the
charges.
5. On October 27, 2014, Mr. Bonzell sent an email to CCSF’s Senior Collection Officer
Doran Gin attaching a summary of payments from Strategic Recovery Partnership, Inc. entitled, "Paid
Claims Detail Report II". A true and correct copy of the email and attachment are attached hereto as
Exhibit A. On October 28, 2014, Kimberly Bergan of Strategic Recovery Partnership, Inc. sent an
email to Mr. Bonzell, copying Doran Gin explaining the amount of payments made by the health
insurance payment. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is:a true and correct copy of that email.
6. On November 16, 2016, Mr. Bonzell sent an email to Senior Collection Officer Doran
Gin disputing the validity of the CCSF’s MRL in Defendant Smith’s lawsuit against the property
Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, §.A.J-
Case No. CGC-17-562329 2oe ND A RB Ww
Yb N YB N YN NN DB ew ewe ew we ee BR Oe
a AA HA BF BH =| So w& AA A RBH TS
owner and management company. This is the first time that Defendant raised any objections to
CCSF's lien. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
7. Two days later, on November 18, 2016, Mr. Bonzell signed a Request for Dismissal
with prejudice against all parties in the action. The Request for Dismissal was filed in San Francisco
Superior Court on December 14, 2016. (See Request for Judicial Notice of the Request for Dismissal,
Exhibit G.), Neither Defendant, nor his counsel Mr. Bonzell, provided any explanation for the sudden
dismissal of the action. Defendant has not paid anything to ZSFG for the medical treatment he
received there as a result of his injuries.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Defendant Eric Smith's
Responses to Plaintiff's First Amended Requests for Admission, Set One.
9. On August 31, 2018, I made a Public Record Request ("PRA")" to the Clovis Unified
School District (“CUSD”) via an email and letter sent by regular mail. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is
a true and correct copy of CCSF’s PRA to the Clovis Unified School District. On September 10, 2018,
CUSD responded to the PRA. Numerous records relating to the CUSD health plan were provided in
response to this request.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Brokerage Concepts, Inc.
D/B/A HealthNow Administrative Services - Client Services Agreement. This document was included
in the records sent to CCSF by CUSD in response to the PRA.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Clovis Unified School
District Employee Benefit Plan effective September 1, 2013. This document was included in the
records sent to CCSF by CUSD in response to the PRA.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 19th day of October, 2018 at San Francisco, California.
DEBRA LEW
Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, S.A.I-
Case No. CGC-17-562329 3EXHIBIT AFrom: Scott Bonzell
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Gin, Doran (TTX)
Subject: Eric Smith
Attach: Paid Claims Detail Report-Eric Smith pdf
Mr. Gin. Thank you for your call this morning. Attached is a summary of payments which | received from SRP, Inc., the
subrogation entity for the Clovis Unified School District. As | read it, there are two large payments ($133,269.91 and
$34,092.50) to SF General Hospital, as seen on pages 5 and 6 of the document.
Scott A. Bonzell
Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell
492 Ninth Street, Suite 260
Oakland, CA 94607
T: (510) 625-7700
F: (510) 625-7709
e-mail: scott@sab-law.net
ae
se avast This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
CCSF 000573coos
—
a
vest oo oo cretiy ose cereal
oot ees 9 Ee
O€S-800 :di0/pun
juowseg wauasinquiay| queued | eouesneur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
i2N ‘a 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed wei
13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug
7318 pied 222 ~ 100 :(s)dnoap
PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun
II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied
CCSF 000574940
Foss yews
6
3
° 200
sampncang
oo 0g
oot o0°0
Oot >
ooos oe ove
juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
i2N foy ‘SOO. 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed weI
13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug
7318 pied 222 ~ 100 :(s)dnoap
PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun
II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied
CCSF 000575rt pecs
‘ampacatd
ees
roa
Poa
‘yarn
8G mis HOMIAN
prozis/s
Buygoctisos &)
DPRK
fsepincag
ose pp'zet see i 2 cele wie
vost yon BEGIGUEEREE 000.4
avo prorstsie oe
rag gene
on°9 proestere
En aanposaed asa youn
Oo bse TS ceo 2 OF eS 900
a5 we ; oxo
1e'9tes ayo
angus avy
soont'ss 209
greoes 2 px0UISEIS ped CO-SGLELE-DIZ we
EERE rosa youn ISERTEISEEN 271-011
as'ths aoe ° 25th soe 99°0 prazistie oo-eseze-riz Nt
ooraes : eve 200 erozieeie yt ScOassTe-TZ he
anprond oss youu EERE RTI 2020014
oot we ele ewowsile # DI-GESEEE-PIZ Wet
ane prove. psatiat/e : 4
juowseg ‘eoueansuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
32N fey 09 | aignonpeg aed eID
prez/pz/s
APT/Ol BAUS PLO /PZ/9
rajeg peaesay
3318 pied
1872 pesinsuyr
zzz -
565 -
II iedsy prejog
i(s}yonpoug
:(s)dnoap
H{Ss)4a3Miepun
SUED pied
CCSF 000576OCrtes.
HB poo,
os'th
cup
Bungadiiog &)
aersons tale
SA poNseN
RST ONIN
progitz/s
esa Yeonsey,
evozsTe/e
esa osu
eNST Homey
prozAiz/s
BSE YONRN
ProgTe/e
24 youten
PIONL79 PRE 00-6 wie
oss 9 EET R024
PIGUST/S Pte oi 32 Wa
5°25 6ou we
so'ser'es 08D qoeete o00
a
£61098 eve 209
99 Oe coe 3 aoa ORDRE Beta ODESPEREPIZ ew
ETRIGENRETSSEN ESIC rosa 30-4 IE EEE eR 9°!404
os aes a a are puo/eie vs . -
juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
32N fey 88045) 09 | aignonpeg aed eID
Plog sete
POL MUR PTOe/EZ/S
pTfOl Rua PIOZ/Pe/9
rajeg peaesay
3318 pied
1872 pesinsuyr
i(s}yonpoug
zzz - i(s)dneag
Adee (Ss) 483 Mepun
II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied
CCSF 000577agrges oo
95 rb
DO
campos,
ero
anipnoeud
campacony
exec
ampooaug
segites
amipocasc
‘Q8E0 ‘TETS “OLTO “OETO Posy
SA poNseN
3027)
Posy!
7702,
cup
Bungadiiog &)
aersons tale
SOH TW#INID ODSTONYYY NYS {4OpIAOd
OO-PSCISR IZ We
00-S4905-F1Z
s te QeEEp rly Wx
eracyz/6
rosy yorrrs|
prozeer/e
PT0z/er/6
rosy soma
YS HONIEN
asd yom
pioziet/s
eeetZ
=~.
UOTE PR
¥ Pd OO bee
ESET 2°
DO-VEEP TE PIZ
rion26 pe
we PRE MESIERE TE Me
SOH THY3N39 ODSIONYYS NUS TOPIAOLE
ws PWR EOSEOLEE- OIE he
SOH TH#INIO OOSIONYYY NYS #4@PIACld
St eE/S wereeozse-viz NK
SOH TW¥INZ9 OOSIINYYS NYS H@PIACsd
pIOT/97/2 Peg TO-REOTEE-PTE we
SOH TWW¥3N9D OISIINVYS NUS HOPIACId
HE oon SY°8ES 6a
Se9Es oe ge9E £005 oo9 Pr ve
juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
32N fey '9°0° 88045) -09__ jaiquenpeg | _i0N E301 aed eID
elodse
/OT Mays PTOe Sy:
pTfOl RUS TOR sbi
29
z/9
rajeg peaesay
3318 pied
1872 pesinsuyr
wee
666 -
668
i(s}yonpoug
:(s)dnoap
H{Ss)4a3Miepun
II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied
CCSF 000578os7s
os'pee’ser# _00°0 one osrrceser 82002 a0'9 LevsTee _9e's6u9z aay HLIWS 2RNE
OS 260'PES coo ooo
juowseg wauasinquiay| queued | eouesneur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg
i2N ‘a 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed wei
13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug
1318 pied 222 ~ 108 i{s)dneasy
PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun
II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied
CCSF 000579EXHIBIT BFrom: Kimberly Bergan
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:08 PM
To: ‘Scott Bonzell' ; Gin, Doran (TTX)
Subject: RE: Eric Smith (DOB [i
Mr. Bonzell,
Please see the below response from the health plan:
The patient used a non-participating facility. Therefore, the plan's payment was at 50%. The member would still owe
50% of the billed or $167,362.41. The total billed amount on our claim was $334,724.82. | don't know where the
additional $80,357.00 is coming from.
Kimberly Bergan
Tel. 215.784.1616 ext 319
Fax. 215.784.1772
Web. www.srpsubro.com
From: Scott Bonzell [mailto:scott@sab-law.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:45 PM
To: kbergan@srpsubro.com; doran.gin@sfgov.org
Subject: Eric Smith (DOB SEES
Dear Ms. Bergan and Mr. Gin:
As you know, | am the attorney for Eric Smith, who was injured in a fall on June 24, 2014. | write regarding SRP file
#14BC1I31023 and SF General Hospital account #08000387714100. Specifically, | would like clarification regarding the
recent notices received from each of you.
SRP sent me a summary which indicates that SF General Hospital billed a total of $334,724.82 and was paid a total of
$167,362.41.
Today, | received a lien letter from Mr. Gin indicating that the City and County claims a lien of $247,719.41 for SF
General Hospital charges.
lam unable to reconcile your respective positions. If SRP paid all but $167,362.41, how can $247,719.41 be owed?
Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Scott A. Bonzell
Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell
492 Ninth Street, Suite 260
Oakland, CA 94607
CCSF 000580T: (510) 625-7700
F: (510) 625-7709
e-mail: scott@sab-law.net
vel
avast This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
CCSF 000581EXHIBIT Cc C
Utley, Eric (TTX)
From: Scott Bonzell [scott@sab-law.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:59 AM
To: . Gin, Doran (TTX)
Subject: SFGH Acct. No. 08000387714100
Hello, Mr. Gin. As you know, | represent Eric Smith, the patient on the above-referenced account.
In prior correspondence, you cited Section 124, Part Il, chapter V of the San Francisco Municipal Code as authority for
the City’s claim against my client. However, in Pros} 1 Gro! ri 1 Gri
(2009) 45 Cal. 4“ 497, the California Supreme Court expressly outlawed the practice of “balance billing.” ‘(id., at 502.)
SF General Hospital was paid $167,362.41 by my client’s medical insurer. It now seeks to recover that same amount
from my client. The P: ical Group case makes clear that such balance billing is not permissible. The SF
Municipal Code cannot override state law.
if you have some authority to establish that the City’s position is correct, please provide it for our consideration.
Otherwise, we will assume you agree that the City’s claim is without merit.
Thank you,
Scott A. Bonzell
Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell
600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305
Oakland, CA 94610
T: (510) 625-7700
F: (510) 625-7709
e-mail: scott@sab-law.net
1 CCSF000179EXHIBIT DSCOTT A. BONZELL, CSB #124160
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. BONZELL
600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305
Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: (510) 625-7700
Facsimile: (510) 625-7709
Attorneys for Defendant Eric Smith
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ) Case No. CGC-17-562329
FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, )
) RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED
Plaintiff ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET
) ONE) (sic)
vs. )
)
ERIC SMITH AKA ERIC HUSTON )
SMITH, an individual, and DOES 1 to 10, +)
inclusive, )
d
Defendants. )
)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Eric Smith
SET NO.: ONE (sic)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant has not completed his discovery, investigation, or preparation for trial in this
matter. Accordingly, these responses to plaintiffs First Amended Request for Admissions (Set
One) (sic) are submitted without prejudice to defendants right to subsequently identify and
produce any information which is hereafter discovered as a result of defendant’s discovery,
investigation or trial preparation, Defendant also expressly reserves the right to subsequently
identify any information omitted from these responses as a result of a good faith oversight.
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page IThese responses are made solely for purposes of this action. Each response is subject to
all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility and any and all
other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any information disclosed
herein if offered as evidence at trial, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may
w
be interposed at the time of trial.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the defined terms render the request
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the entire request is
vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows:
Defendant admits that he had health insurance in June and July 2014 through his mother’s
employment, but he has never seen the EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN referenced in the request
and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon which to admit the remainder of the
request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “dependent under
YOUR mother’s EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving
that objection, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he had health insurance in
June and July 2014 through his mother’s employment, but he has never seen the EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLAN referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon
which to admit the remainder of the request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action, Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR policy or contract,”
“YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “responsible for” and “the value of the services” are vague and
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 2A A WA Ph WwW Bw
ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant
admits that his health insurer paid one-half of the ZSFGH charges. However, defendant has not
seen the “policy or contract” referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient
information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. Defendant does not admit that
the ZSFGH bills represent the actual “value” of the services provided.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR policy or contract,”
“YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “responsible for” and “the value of the services” are vague and
ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant
admits that his health insurance paid one-half of the ZSFGH charges. However, defendant has
not seen the “policy or contract” referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient
information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. Defendant does not admit that
he is obligated to pay the other half. Defendant does not admit that the ZS9FGH bills represent
the actual “value” of the services provided.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
Admit.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “mentally competent”
and “to sign” are vague, ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds
that it calls for a medical opinion which defendant is not qualified to render. Without waiving
those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “financially
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 3responsible,” “value of the services rendered” and “under San Francisco Health Code section
124” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the
issues in this case. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the
province of the trier of fact. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows:
Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “financially
responsible,” “value of the services rendered” and “under San Francisco Health Code section
124.5” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that
it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the
issues in this case. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the
province of the trier of fact. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows:
Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH bills” and
“reasonable under San Francisco Health Code section 124.1” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this case. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH bills” and
“reasonable under California Civil Code Section 3045.1” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact.
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 4Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “the value of the
services rendered” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant
tesponds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH billed $334,724.82 for the services provided
to defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR HEALTH
INSURER” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as
follows: Defendant admits that $167,632.41 was paid by his health insurer.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR COINSURANCE” is
vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as
follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR plan,” “the amount it was
obligated to pay” and “any contract YOU were a beneficiary of” are vague and ambiguous,
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
4
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 5RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,”
“should not have made payment” and “based on ZSFGH’s total billed charges” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN,” “should not have
made payment” and “based on ZSFGH’s total billed charges” are vague and ambiguous,
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “filed a grievance,” “any entity,”
“partial payment” and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound. Defendant further objects ta
this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Without waiving those objections,
defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he did not challenge the amount paid by
his health insurer, if that is what the request is asking.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 6lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “filed an appeal,” “any entity,”
“partial payment” and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound. Defendant further objects to
this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Without waiving those objections,
defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he did not challenge the amount paid by
his health insurer, if that is what the request is asking.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19:
Deny.
SPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER”
and “overseen by” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the
grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as
follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “coverage provided,” “YOUR
HEALTH INSURER” and “not overseen by” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections,
defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient
information upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 7RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action, Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER”
and “subject to the Knox Keene Act, California Health and Safety Code §§ 1340 et seq.” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory
interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as
follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not teasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “subject to
the Knox Keene Act, California Health and Safety Code §§ 1340 et seq.” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation
and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 24:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER”
and “within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code § 1345(£)” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory
interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as
follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 8RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “within the
meaning of California Health and Safety Code § 1345(f)” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation and a legal
conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “operates
pursuant to a certificate” are vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections,
defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient
information upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER”
and “operates pursuant to a certificate” are vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without
sufficient information upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Medi-Care rate of
payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further
abjects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as defendant’s bill was not paid
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 9by Medicare. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant denies that what
Medicare would pay for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a
determination of the reasonable value of those services,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Medi-Cal rate of
payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as defendant’s bill was not paid
by Medi-Cal. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant denies that what
Medi-Cal would pay for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a
determination of the reasonable value of those services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Worker’s
Compensation rate of payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as
defendant’s bill was not paid by workers’ compensation. Defendant further objects to this
request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant
responds as follows: Defendant denies that what the workers’ compensation system would pay
for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a determination of the
reasonable value of those services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 10unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence conceming the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and
unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “the PLAN” is vague and
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 11NY Div
ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” is
vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “HEALTH NOW,” “third party
administrator,” “the PLAN” and “the ZSFGH charges” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it requires defendant to speculate about
contractual or business relationships of which he has no personal knowledge. Without waiving
those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is
without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “SRP,” “subrogation agent,”
“HEALTH NOW” and “the ZSFGH charges” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds that it requires defendant to speculate about contractual or
business relationships of which he has no personal knowledge. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without
sufficient information upon which to respond to this request.
Wf
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 12Nn win
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed”
and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this
request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant
responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information
upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed”
and “HEALTH NOW” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on
the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds
as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which
to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed”
and “Blue Shield of California” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this
request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant
responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information
upon which to respond to this request.
HW
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 13RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed”
and “SRP” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds
that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond
to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,”
“the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without
waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was
paid $167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the
request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN,” “the ZSEGH
total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZS3FGH was paid
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 14$167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the
request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “HEALTH NOW,” “caused, in
whole or in part,” “the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible,
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without
waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was
paid $167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the
request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “SRP,” “caused, in whole or in
part,” “the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was paid
$167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the
request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to
respond.
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 15RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges”
and “the services rendered to YOU” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this
request on the grounds that it is compound and overly broad in scope. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant further objects
to this request on the grounds that the phrase “sought to recover damages based on the full
amount of ZSFGH’s charges,” “YOUR personal injury claim” and “relating to the subject
matter” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that
it is unintelligible.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “recovered a settlement fund, “any
or all defendants” and “based upon the full amount” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for information which is protected from
disclosure by California Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1119, et seq. Without waiving those
objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without
sufficient information upon which to respond to this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 16lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “COMMUNICATION disputing
the reasonableness” and “the parties of the PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible.
Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “present in the room” is
vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows:
Defendant has no precise recollection of who was present when he “signed” the TCOA, so he is
without sufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53:
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “present in the room” is
vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows:
Defendant has no precise recollection of who was present when he “signed” the TCOA, so he is
without sufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request.
Dated: October tt 2018 LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. BONZELL
By.
Scott A Bonzell
Attorneys for DefendantEric Smith
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Page 17VERIFICATION
I, Eric Smith, declare:
Tam the defendant in the above-entitled action and I make this verification on my
own behalf.
I have read the foregoing Responses to Amended Requests for Admissions, Set
One (sic), and know its contents.
The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my knowledge except as
to any matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them
to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 2018, in Oakland, California.
Eric Smithhm
won
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305, Oakland,
California 94610. On October 11, 2018, J served the within document(s):
RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE)
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s)
set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
x by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed
as set forth beiow.
by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
address set forth below.
Theresa A. Buckley
Debra D. Lew
City and County of San Francisco
Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector-Legal
P.O. Box 7426
San Francisco, CA 94120-7426
T: 415,554-7888
theresa.buckley@sfgov.org
debra.lew@sfgov.org
lam readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on October 11, 2018, at Oakland, California.
Kotte
Scott A. Bonzell *EXHIBIT ELew, Debra (TTX) oe
ss CCE EES a
From: Lew, Debra (TTX)
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 12:41 PM
To: ‘shareencrosby@cusd.com'
Ce: Lew, Debra (TTX); Utley, Eric (TTX); Buckley, Theresa (TTX)
Subject: Public Record Request CUSD
RE: CUSD: Employee Benefit Plan — Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Effective September 1, 2013.
Dear Ms. Crosby: Can you please provide an immediate disclosure (24 hours) if possible, of the following documents to
the undersigned as a PDF?
(1) CUSD: Employee Benefit Plan — Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Effective September 1, 2013.
We cannot use the documents that is online “As restated Effective September 1, 2016”. Would it be possible to
get someone to certify that the copy of the September 1, 2013 Plan and Summary Plan is a true and correct copy
of that document under penalty of perjury?
(2) A (certified) copy of the contract the CUSD Employee Benefi t Plan had ait Blue Shield effective for services
rendered effective June 1 through July 30, 2014.
(3) A (certified) PDF copy of the contract CUSD had with HealthNow as the third party administrator, effective June 1
through July 30, 2014.
(4) A (certified) PDF copy of the contract CUSD had with Strategy Recovery Partnership, Inc., effective June 1
through July 30, 2014.
Can you possibly tell me if that makes Blue Shield is the PLAN SPONSOR (described on page 16 of the current Plan
online) under Allowed Amount?
Please feel free to call or email me with questions.
Thanks.
Debra D. Lew
Assistant Tax Collector Attorney - Legal Section
(415)554-7888Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector
City and County of San Francisco
José Cisneros, Treasurer
Legal Section
ig 327-912.
Clo
Preview
THERESA A. BUCKLEY, State Bar No. 259701 DEBRA D. LEW, State Bar No. 114537 Office of Treasurer and Tax Collector — Legal Section City and County of San Francisco P.O. Box 7426 San Francisco, California 94120-7426 Telephone: (415) 554-4492 (Direct) Facsimile: (415) 554-5010 E-Mail: Theresa.Buckley@sfgov.org DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Aitommey OWEN J. CLEMENTS, State Bar #141805 Chief of Special Litigation Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3944 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: Owen.Clements@sfcityatty.org Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 10/19/2018 Clerk of the Court BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMI! Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Case No. CGC-17-562329 FRANCISCO, DECLARATION OF DEBRA LEW IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S OPPOSITION TO ERIC vs. SMITH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ERIC SMITH, et al., SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Defendants. Hearing Date: November 2, 2018 Hearing Judge: Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. Time: 9:30 a.m, Place: 302 Reservation No. 06181102-11 Date Action Filed: November 7, 2017 Trial Date: December 3, 2018 Attached Documents: Mem. of P. & A.; Separate Statement; Objection to Evid.; Req. for Judicial Notice; Decis. of Christy, Heil, Buckley, and Del Rosario, [Proposed] Orders Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s ue for Summary Judgment, S.A.1— Case No. CGC-17-562329DECLARATION OF DEBRA LEW I, DEBRA LEW, declare: 1, Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am the Assistant Tax Collector Attomey for the San Francisco Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector and an attorney of record for the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) in the above-entitled matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 2. On September 28, 2015, Defendant Eric Smith filed a personal injury lawsuit against the property owner and property management company — Smith v. Sebastopol Garden Apartments, LLC, Breman Arm, LLC, Gaetani Real Estate, et al. (San Francisco Sup. Ct. Case No. GCG-15- 548160). Defendant Eric Smith was represented by Scott Bonzell in this litigation. 3. On January 22, 2016, CCSF filed a Medical Reimbursement Lien (“MRL”) in that litigation seeking $167,362.41, the balance of his hospital bill. (See Request for Judicial Notice of the Medical Reimbursement Lien, Exhibit C). 4, Other than an inquiry from Mr. Bonzell about an overlapping bill and payment from Blue Shield, Defendant and his counsel did not raise any objections (let alone pose any questions) for over two years about the total bill, his coinsurance share, the treatment of the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (“ZSFG”) as an out-of-network provider, or the reasonableness of the charges. 5. On October 27, 2014, Mr. Bonzell sent an email to CCSF’s Senior Collection Officer Doran Gin attaching a summary of payments from Strategic Recovery Partnership, Inc. entitled, "Paid Claims Detail Report II". A true and correct copy of the email and attachment are attached hereto as Exhibit A. On October 28, 2014, Kimberly Bergan of Strategic Recovery Partnership, Inc. sent an email to Mr. Bonzell, copying Doran Gin explaining the amount of payments made by the health insurance payment. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is:a true and correct copy of that email. 6. On November 16, 2016, Mr. Bonzell sent an email to Senior Collection Officer Doran Gin disputing the validity of the CCSF’s MRL in Defendant Smith’s lawsuit against the property Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, §.A.J- Case No. CGC-17-562329 2oe ND A RB Ww Yb N YB N YN NN DB ew ewe ew we ee BR Oe a AA HA BF BH =| So w& AA A RBH TS owner and management company. This is the first time that Defendant raised any objections to CCSF's lien. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 7. Two days later, on November 18, 2016, Mr. Bonzell signed a Request for Dismissal with prejudice against all parties in the action. The Request for Dismissal was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on December 14, 2016. (See Request for Judicial Notice of the Request for Dismissal, Exhibit G.), Neither Defendant, nor his counsel Mr. Bonzell, provided any explanation for the sudden dismissal of the action. Defendant has not paid anything to ZSFG for the medical treatment he received there as a result of his injuries. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Defendant Eric Smith's Responses to Plaintiff's First Amended Requests for Admission, Set One. 9. On August 31, 2018, I made a Public Record Request ("PRA")" to the Clovis Unified School District (“CUSD”) via an email and letter sent by regular mail. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of CCSF’s PRA to the Clovis Unified School District. On September 10, 2018, CUSD responded to the PRA. Numerous records relating to the CUSD health plan were provided in response to this request. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Brokerage Concepts, Inc. D/B/A HealthNow Administrative Services - Client Services Agreement. This document was included in the records sent to CCSF by CUSD in response to the PRA. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Clovis Unified School District Employee Benefit Plan effective September 1, 2013. This document was included in the records sent to CCSF by CUSD in response to the PRA. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 19th day of October, 2018 at San Francisco, California. DEBRA LEW Declaration of Debra Lew In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, S.A.I- Case No. CGC-17-562329 3EXHIBIT AFrom: Scott Bonzell Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:08 PM To: Gin, Doran (TTX) Subject: Eric Smith Attach: Paid Claims Detail Report-Eric Smith pdf Mr. Gin. Thank you for your call this morning. Attached is a summary of payments which | received from SRP, Inc., the subrogation entity for the Clovis Unified School District. As | read it, there are two large payments ($133,269.91 and $34,092.50) to SF General Hospital, as seen on pages 5 and 6 of the document. Scott A. Bonzell Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell 492 Ninth Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 T: (510) 625-7700 F: (510) 625-7709 e-mail: scott@sab-law.net ae se avast This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. CCSF 000573coos — a vest oo oo cretiy ose cereal oot ees 9 Ee O€S-800 :di0/pun juowseg wauasinquiay| queued | eouesneur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg i2N ‘a 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed wei 13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug 7318 pied 222 ~ 100 :(s)dnoap PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied CCSF 000574940 Foss yews 6 3 ° 200 sampncang oo 0g oot o0°0 Oot > ooos oe ove juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg i2N foy ‘SOO. 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed weI 13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug 7318 pied 222 ~ 100 :(s)dnoap PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied CCSF 000575rt pecs ‘ampacatd ees roa Poa ‘yarn 8G mis HOMIAN prozis/s Buygoctisos &) DPRK fsepincag ose pp'zet see i 2 cele wie vost yon BEGIGUEEREE 000.4 avo prorstsie oe rag gene on°9 proestere En aanposaed asa youn Oo bse TS ceo 2 OF eS 900 a5 we ; oxo 1e'9tes ayo angus avy soont'ss 209 greoes 2 px0UISEIS ped CO-SGLELE-DIZ we EERE rosa youn ISERTEISEEN 271-011 as'ths aoe ° 25th soe 99°0 prazistie oo-eseze-riz Nt ooraes : eve 200 erozieeie yt ScOassTe-TZ he anprond oss youu EERE RTI 2020014 oot we ele ewowsile # DI-GESEEE-PIZ Wet ane prove. psatiat/e : 4 juowseg ‘eoueansuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg 32N fey 09 | aignonpeg aed eID prez/pz/s APT/Ol BAUS PLO /PZ/9 rajeg peaesay 3318 pied 1872 pesinsuyr zzz - 565 - II iedsy prejog i(s}yonpoug :(s)dnoap H{Ss)4a3Miepun SUED pied CCSF 000576OCrtes. HB poo, os'th cup Bungadiiog &) aersons tale SA poNseN RST ONIN progitz/s esa Yeonsey, evozsTe/e esa osu eNST Homey prozAiz/s BSE YONRN ProgTe/e 24 youten PIONL79 PRE 00-6 wie oss 9 EET R024 PIGUST/S Pte oi 32 Wa 5°25 6ou we so'ser'es 08D qoeete o00 a £61098 eve 209 99 Oe coe 3 aoa ORDRE Beta ODESPEREPIZ ew ETRIGENRETSSEN ESIC rosa 30-4 IE EEE eR 9°!404 os aes a a are puo/eie vs . - juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg 32N fey 88045) 09 | aignonpeg aed eID Plog sete POL MUR PTOe/EZ/S pTfOl Rua PIOZ/Pe/9 rajeg peaesay 3318 pied 1872 pesinsuyr i(s}yonpoug zzz - i(s)dneag Adee (Ss) 483 Mepun II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied CCSF 000577agrges oo 95 rb DO campos, ero anipnoeud campacony exec ampooaug segites amipocasc ‘Q8E0 ‘TETS “OLTO “OETO Posy SA poNseN 3027) Posy! 7702, cup Bungadiiog &) aersons tale SOH TW#INID ODSTONYYY NYS {4OpIAOd OO-PSCISR IZ We 00-S4905-F1Z s te QeEEp rly Wx eracyz/6 rosy yorrrs| prozeer/e PT0z/er/6 rosy soma YS HONIEN asd yom pioziet/s eeetZ =~. UOTE PR ¥ Pd OO bee ESET 2° DO-VEEP TE PIZ rion26 pe we PRE MESIERE TE Me SOH THY3N39 ODSIONYYS NUS TOPIAOLE ws PWR EOSEOLEE- OIE he SOH TH#INIO OOSIONYYY NYS #4@PIACld St eE/S wereeozse-viz NK SOH TW¥INZ9 OOSIINYYS NYS H@PIACsd pIOT/97/2 Peg TO-REOTEE-PTE we SOH TWW¥3N9D OISIINVYS NUS HOPIACId HE oon SY°8ES 6a Se9Es oe ge9E £005 oo9 Pr ve juowseg yuawasinquiay| quewdeg | aoueansur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg 32N fey '9°0° 88045) -09__ jaiquenpeg | _i0N E301 aed eID elodse /OT Mays PTOe Sy: pTfOl RUS TOR sbi 29 z/9 rajeg peaesay 3318 pied 1872 pesinsuyr wee 666 - 668 i(s}yonpoug :(s)dnoap H{Ss)4a3Miepun II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied CCSF 000578os7s os'pee’ser# _00°0 one osrrceser 82002 a0'9 LevsTee _9e's6u9z aay HLIWS 2RNE OS 260'PES coo ooo juowseg wauasinquiay| queued | eouesneur paisaoy | saGreuy pied | passacoig | panesay [pesinour | snieig/sequinn/adAg i2N ‘a 88055, “03. [ajqnonpea | _30N ie901 aed wei 13jeq peaisoay ied i(s}yonpoug 1318 pied 222 ~ 108 i{s)dneasy PIOT/PT/OT RaUR bTOZ/y 137 PssinIUy 666 + 106 {S)JajuMuspun II Hiodsy prejog sulleyp pied CCSF 000579EXHIBIT BFrom: Kimberly Bergan Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:08 PM To: ‘Scott Bonzell' ; Gin, Doran (TTX) Subject: RE: Eric Smith (DOB [i Mr. Bonzell, Please see the below response from the health plan: The patient used a non-participating facility. Therefore, the plan's payment was at 50%. The member would still owe 50% of the billed or $167,362.41. The total billed amount on our claim was $334,724.82. | don't know where the additional $80,357.00 is coming from. Kimberly Bergan Tel. 215.784.1616 ext 319 Fax. 215.784.1772 Web. www.srpsubro.com From: Scott Bonzell [mailto:scott@sab-law.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:45 PM To: kbergan@srpsubro.com; doran.gin@sfgov.org Subject: Eric Smith (DOB SEES Dear Ms. Bergan and Mr. Gin: As you know, | am the attorney for Eric Smith, who was injured in a fall on June 24, 2014. | write regarding SRP file #14BC1I31023 and SF General Hospital account #08000387714100. Specifically, | would like clarification regarding the recent notices received from each of you. SRP sent me a summary which indicates that SF General Hospital billed a total of $334,724.82 and was paid a total of $167,362.41. Today, | received a lien letter from Mr. Gin indicating that the City and County claims a lien of $247,719.41 for SF General Hospital charges. lam unable to reconcile your respective positions. If SRP paid all but $167,362.41, how can $247,719.41 be owed? Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Scott A. Bonzell Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell 492 Ninth Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 CCSF 000580T: (510) 625-7700 F: (510) 625-7709 e-mail: scott@sab-law.net vel avast This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. CCSF 000581EXHIBIT Cc C Utley, Eric (TTX) From: Scott Bonzell [scott@sab-law.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:59 AM To: . Gin, Doran (TTX) Subject: SFGH Acct. No. 08000387714100 Hello, Mr. Gin. As you know, | represent Eric Smith, the patient on the above-referenced account. In prior correspondence, you cited Section 124, Part Il, chapter V of the San Francisco Municipal Code as authority for the City’s claim against my client. However, in Pros} 1 Gro! ri 1 Gri (2009) 45 Cal. 4“ 497, the California Supreme Court expressly outlawed the practice of “balance billing.” ‘(id., at 502.) SF General Hospital was paid $167,362.41 by my client’s medical insurer. It now seeks to recover that same amount from my client. The P: ical Group case makes clear that such balance billing is not permissible. The SF Municipal Code cannot override state law. if you have some authority to establish that the City’s position is correct, please provide it for our consideration. Otherwise, we will assume you agree that the City’s claim is without merit. Thank you, Scott A. Bonzell Law Offices of Scott A. Bonzell 600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94610 T: (510) 625-7700 F: (510) 625-7709 e-mail: scott@sab-law.net 1 CCSF000179EXHIBIT DSCOTT A. BONZELL, CSB #124160 LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. BONZELL 600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94610 Telephone: (510) 625-7700 Facsimile: (510) 625-7709 Attorneys for Defendant Eric Smith SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ) Case No. CGC-17-562329 FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, ) ) RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED Plaintiff ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ) ONE) (sic) vs. ) ) ERIC SMITH AKA ERIC HUSTON ) SMITH, an individual, and DOES 1 to 10, +) inclusive, ) d Defendants. ) ) PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Eric Smith SET NO.: ONE (sic) PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant has not completed his discovery, investigation, or preparation for trial in this matter. Accordingly, these responses to plaintiffs First Amended Request for Admissions (Set One) (sic) are submitted without prejudice to defendants right to subsequently identify and produce any information which is hereafter discovered as a result of defendant’s discovery, investigation or trial preparation, Defendant also expressly reserves the right to subsequently identify any information omitted from these responses as a result of a good faith oversight. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page IThese responses are made solely for purposes of this action. Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility and any and all other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any information disclosed herein if offered as evidence at trial, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may w be interposed at the time of trial. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the defined terms render the request unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the entire request is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he had health insurance in June and July 2014 through his mother’s employment, but he has never seen the EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “dependent under YOUR mother’s EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he had health insurance in June and July 2014 through his mother’s employment, but he has never seen the EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action, Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR policy or contract,” “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “responsible for” and “the value of the services” are vague and RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 2A A WA Ph WwW Bw ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that his health insurer paid one-half of the ZSFGH charges. However, defendant has not seen the “policy or contract” referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. Defendant does not admit that the ZSFGH bills represent the actual “value” of the services provided. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR policy or contract,” “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “responsible for” and “the value of the services” are vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that his health insurance paid one-half of the ZSFGH charges. However, defendant has not seen the “policy or contract” referenced in the request and is, therefore, without sufficient information upon which to admit the remainder of the request. Defendant does not admit that he is obligated to pay the other half. Defendant does not admit that the ZS9FGH bills represent the actual “value” of the services provided. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Admit. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “mentally competent” and “to sign” are vague, ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a medical opinion which defendant is not qualified to render. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “financially RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 3responsible,” “value of the services rendered” and “under San Francisco Health Code section 124” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this case. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “financially responsible,” “value of the services rendered” and “under San Francisco Health Code section 124.5” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this case. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH bills” and “reasonable under San Francisco Health Code section 124.1” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this case. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH bills” and “reasonable under California Civil Code Section 3045.1” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it invades the province of the trier of fact. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 4Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “the value of the services rendered” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant tesponds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH billed $334,724.82 for the services provided to defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that $167,632.41 was paid by his health insurer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR COINSURANCE” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR plan,” “the amount it was obligated to pay” and “any contract YOU were a beneficiary of” are vague and ambiguous, Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. 4 RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 5RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “should not have made payment” and “based on ZSFGH’s total billed charges” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN,” “should not have made payment” and “based on ZSFGH’s total billed charges” are vague and ambiguous, Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “filed a grievance,” “any entity,” “partial payment” and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound. Defendant further objects ta this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he did not challenge the amount paid by his health insurer, if that is what the request is asking. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 6lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “filed an appeal,” “any entity,” “partial payment” and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that he did not challenge the amount paid by his health insurer, if that is what the request is asking. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: Deny. SPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” and “overseen by” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “coverage provided,” “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” and “not overseen by” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 7RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action, Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” and “subject to the Knox Keene Act, California Health and Safety Code §§ 1340 et seq.” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not teasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “subject to the Knox Keene Act, California Health and Safety Code §§ 1340 et seq.” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 24: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” and “within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code § 1345(£)” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 8RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code § 1345(f)” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for statutory interpretation and a legal conclusion. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN” and “operates pursuant to a certificate” are vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” and “operates pursuant to a certificate” are vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Medi-Care rate of payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further abjects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as defendant’s bill was not paid RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 9by Medicare. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant denies that what Medicare would pay for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a determination of the reasonable value of those services, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Medi-Cal rate of payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as defendant’s bill was not paid by Medi-Cal. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant denies that what Medi-Cal would pay for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a determination of the reasonable value of those services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the Worker’s Compensation rate of payment,” “YOUR ZSFGH bill” and “reasonable” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation, as defendant’s bill was not paid by workers’ compensation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant denies that what the workers’ compensation system would pay for services of the type rendered to defendant has no bearing on a determination of the reasonable value of those services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 10unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence conceming the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, compound and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “the PLAN” is vague and RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 11NY Div ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “HEALTH NOW,” “third party administrator,” “the PLAN” and “the ZSFGH charges” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it requires defendant to speculate about contractual or business relationships of which he has no personal knowledge. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “SRP,” “subrogation agent,” “HEALTH NOW” and “the ZSFGH charges” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it requires defendant to speculate about contractual or business relationships of which he has no personal knowledge. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. Wf RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 12Nn win RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed” and “YOUR HEALTH INSURER” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed” and “HEALTH NOW” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed” and “Blue Shield of California” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. HW RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 13RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges,” “reviewed” and “SRP” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR HEALTH INSURER,” “the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was paid $167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “YOUR PLAN,” “the ZSEGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZS3FGH was paid RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 14$167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “HEALTH NOW,” “caused, in whole or in part,” “the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible, Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was paid $167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “SRP,” “caused, in whole or in part,” “the ZSFGH total charges” and “ALLOWED AMOUNT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that ZSFGH was paid $167,632.41, and that said sum is 50% of ZSFGH’s total bill. As to the remainder of the request, despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 15RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “the ZSFGH charges” and “the services rendered to YOU” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and overly broad in scope. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it lacks foundation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “sought to recover damages based on the full amount of ZSFGH’s charges,” “YOUR personal injury claim” and “relating to the subject matter” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “recovered a settlement fund, “any or all defendants” and “based upon the full amount” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for information which is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1119, et seq. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Despite a reasonable inquiry, defendant is without sufficient information upon which to respond to this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 16lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the issues in this action. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “COMMUNICATION disputing the reasonableness” and “the parties of the PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible. Without waiving those objections, defendant responds as follows: Deny. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “present in the room” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no precise recollection of who was present when he “signed” the TCOA, so he is without sufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that the phrase “present in the room” is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving that objection, defendant responds as follows: Defendant has no precise recollection of who was present when he “signed” the TCOA, so he is without sufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request. Dated: October tt 2018 LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. BONZELL By. Scott A Bonzell Attorneys for DefendantEric Smith RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Page 17VERIFICATION I, Eric Smith, declare: Tam the defendant in the above-entitled action and I make this verification on my own behalf. I have read the foregoing Responses to Amended Requests for Admissions, Set One (sic), and know its contents. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my knowledge except as to any matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 2018, in Oakland, California. Eric Smithhm won PROOF OF SERVICE Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 600 Grand Avenue, Suite 305, Oakland, California 94610. On October 11, 2018, J served the within document(s): RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. x by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed as set forth beiow. by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address set forth below. Theresa A. Buckley Debra D. Lew City and County of San Francisco Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector-Legal P.O. Box 7426 San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 T: 415,554-7888 theresa.buckley@sfgov.org debra.lew@sfgov.org lam readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 11, 2018, at Oakland, California. Kotte Scott A. Bonzell *EXHIBIT ELew, Debra (TTX) oe ss CCE EES a From: Lew, Debra (TTX) Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 12:41 PM To: ‘shareencrosby@cusd.com' Ce: Lew, Debra (TTX); Utley, Eric (TTX); Buckley, Theresa (TTX) Subject: Public Record Request CUSD RE: CUSD: Employee Benefit Plan — Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Effective September 1, 2013. Dear Ms. Crosby: Can you please provide an immediate disclosure (24 hours) if possible, of the following documents to the undersigned as a PDF? (1) CUSD: Employee Benefit Plan — Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Effective September 1, 2013. We cannot use the documents that is online “As restated Effective September 1, 2016”. Would it be possible to get someone to certify that the copy of the September 1, 2013 Plan and Summary Plan is a true and correct copy of that document under penalty of perjury? (2) A (certified) copy of the contract the CUSD Employee Benefi t Plan had ait Blue Shield effective for services rendered effective June 1 through July 30, 2014. (3) A (certified) PDF copy of the contract CUSD had with HealthNow as the third party administrator, effective June 1 through July 30, 2014. (4) A (certified) PDF copy of the contract CUSD had with Strategy Recovery Partnership, Inc., effective June 1 through July 30, 2014. Can you possibly tell me if that makes Blue Shield is the PLAN SPONSOR (described on page 16 of the current Plan online) under Allowed Amount? Please feel free to call or email me with questions. Thanks. Debra D. Lew Assistant Tax Collector Attorney - Legal Section (415)554-7888Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco José Cisneros, Treasurer Legal Section ig 327-912. Clo