In re Athaniel Candelas

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re Athaniel Candelas Superior Court Case No. 26CU00381

Hearing Date: June 25, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To grant. Orders signed. No appearances necessary.

Explanation:

On this occasion only, due to the impacted state of its docket, the court considers the petition to compromise the claim of minor Athaniel Candelas from its previously designated expedited status without obtaining a new hearing date for the different petition type.

Upon review of the supplemental declaration, the court notes that the authority cited to address the issue of use of “lien-based providers” is not directly relevant. (See Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266, 1276-1277; Qaadir v. Figueroa (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 790, 802-803.) There, the issues addressed were the admissibility of evidence to prove past and future medical damages as to liability against a defendant. Thus, the obligation to mitigate damages was considered where a plaintiff elected to seek treatment without the benefit of utilizing private insurance. In other words, these cases address admissibility of evidence in mitigation of damages.

Here, mitigation is not against an alleged liable third party. “Mitigation” is against the minor’s own recovery. While a plaintiff may elect to obtain treatment outside of available insurance in favor of specialists who do not accept the insurance or are “more willing to participate in the litigation process” (Qaadir v. Figueroa, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 803), it is also recognized that “a medical care provider’s billed price for particular services is not necessarily representative of either the cost of providing those services or their market value” (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 565). The billed prices here are scrutinized not as a mitigation factor, but for their costs of services rendered and billed against the minor and the minor’s recovery.