Guardianship of Bassam R Rifai et al

Ahlborn Motion or Reduction in Medi-Cal lien. According to SCOTUS, DHCS violates federal law when it places a statutory lien on any amount of a settlement or judgment above an amount specifically designated as reimbursement for medical costs. (Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn (2006) 547 U.S. 268, 272.)

Thus, according to California cases decided after Ahlborn, DHCS cannot seek full reimbursement for Medi-Cal payments made for medical care required to treat injuries caused by a third-party tortfeasor, unless the recipient of the medical care recovers the full value of their tort claim. (See e.g. Lopez v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378; Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 260; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.)

Thus in a settlement, DHCS's recovery is limited to a percentage of the portion of the settlement apportioned for reimbursement of payments made for medical care, equivalent to the percent the settlement is to the value of the full claim amount: Expressed mathematically, the Ahlborn formula calculates the reimbursement due as the total settlement divided by the full value of the claim, which is then multiplied by the value of benefits provided. (Reimbursement Due = [Total Settlement ÷ Full Value of Claim] × Value of Benefits Provided.) (Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 821, 828.)

If such deficiencies are adequately addressed prior to the hearing, the court may sign the Order Approving Compromise and vacate the hearing date.

Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Bassam R Rifai et al Tentative Ruling: Guardianship of Bassam R Rifai et al Case Number

Case Type Guardianship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 06/02/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings First Accounting and Report of Guardian Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Discrepancy no. 1 - Notice is defective. Petitioner must serve notice of the accounting pursuant to Probate Code section 1460. Notice in this case was not given to anyone.

Discrepancy no. 2 - Accounting period is incorrect. The guardian was appointed on November 14, 2024, thus the accounting must begin from the date of appointment. (Prob. Code, Sec. 1061(a).)

Discrepancy no. 3 - No Schedule E. Accounting is missing Schedule E showing assets on hand at end of the accounting.

Discrepancy no. 4 - No account statements. Account statements are not on file. Petitioner must submit original account statements for review that confirm the amounts on hand at the beginning and end of the accounting period. (Prob. Code, Sec. 2620.)

Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Briana Vargas