Tyler Medical Clinic v. Gess & Associates

Filed 7/27/06 Tyler Medical Clinic v. Gess & Associates CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Joanne O'Donnell, Judge. Affirmed.

Lange & Koncius, Jeffrey A. Koncius and Joseph J. M. Lange for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Kenneth G. Katel for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________

Plaintiff Tyler Medical Clinic (Clinic) entered into a contract with defendant Gess & Associates (Gess), a collection agency, to initiate legal action against patients who did not pay their medical bills. Gess brought a collection action against two patients and later dismissed it without the Clinic's consent.

The Clinic filed this suit against Gess, alleging that Gess breached the parties' contract by dismissing the collection action without approval. The case was tried to the court. The Clinic's expert witness, who had been the treating physician, refused to describe the medical services provided to the patients on the ground of patient privacy. At the close of the Clinic's evidence, the trial court granted judgment for the defense, concluding the Clinic had not shown it had been damaged by Gess's dismissal of the underlying action.

On appeal, the Clinic contends that the trial court erred. We disagree. Because the Clinic's expert did not testify about the specifics of the medical treatment provided to the patients, there was insufficient evidence to find that the collection action had merit. We therefore affirm.

I

BACKGROUND

In March 1997, the Clinic entered into a â€