Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, GASP challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Per-Se concerning alleged damages resulting from medical billing errors. The primary legal issues revolve around the correct application of causation standards, the admissibility of evidence, and the existence of genuine issues of material fact. GASP contends that the district court erred by applying an incorrect causation test, excluding pertinent evidence, and concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed. On appeal, the court conducts a de novo review and reverses the district court's decision. It concludes that GASP provided sufficient evidence, including expert testimonies and employee depositions, indicating that Per-Se's alleged breaches significantly contributed to the financial damages incurred. The appellate court highlights that summary judgment is inappropriate when material factual disputes are present, thus entitling GASP to a trial. This decision, while reversing the lower court's ruling, is not published under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admission of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court indicates that the district court improperly excluded relevant evidence, including expert testimonies and employee depositions, which highlighted discrepancies in billing performance attributable to Per-Se.
Reasoning: The evidence presented, including expert testimonies from Robert Burleigh and William Mowrey, suggests that the discrepancies in billing performance were attributable to Per-Se’s alleged breaches rather than external factors.
Causation in Tort Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court finds that GASP raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Per-Se's actions were a substantial factor in causing the damages.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviews this decision de novo and ultimately reverses the district court’s ruling, finding that GASP has indeed raised genuine issues of material fact about whether Per-Se was a substantial factor in the damages incurred.
Ninth Circuit Rule on Publicationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court designates its opinion as not suitable for publication under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is reversed, and the disposition is deemed not suitable for publication under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court emphasizes that summary judgment is only appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Reasoning: The appellate court notes that summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.