Verdictly
Settlement
Maricopa County • 2012

Maricopa County Court Rules in Medicaid Billing Dispute, Awards $24,794

One driver was injured in an auto accident and later received medical treatment. The driver believed their health insurance would cover the costs. However, a company that purchased the medical provider's receivables sought payment from the driver. The driver filed a complaint to clarify who should pay for the medical services. The court ruled in favor of the driver, stating the company could not bill them directly.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

Case Outcome

Outcome
Settlement
Amount
$15,000
County
Maricopa County, AZ
Resolved
2012

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Other
Accident Type
Other
Case Type
Motor Vehicle Negligence, Other - Declaratory Judgment

Settlement Context

This settlement of $15,000 is near the median of $15,000 for other cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $7,752 to $67,500, based on 126 cases in our database.

Case Overview

In August 2007, an individual was injured in an auto accident in Arizona. During hospitalization, the person was determined eligible for the state's Medicaid program (AHCCCS) and received an identification number and health plan. For ongoing treatment, the individual was referred to an imaging center in early 2008. The plaintiff stated he provided his AHCCCS information to the center, which subsequently billed $4,435.90 for its services.

A company purchased these receivables in April 2008 and sought to collect payment from the individual. Following a $15,000 settlement for the auto accident injuries, the individual filed an interpleader complaint in February 2011 in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The complaint requested clarification on the distribution of settlement proceeds among himself and various collecting entities. The defendant, the receivables company, filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In June 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the defendant, as the assignee of the imaging center, was bound by the AHCCCS Program Participation Agreement. This agreement prohibited billing or attempting to recover payment directly from an AHCCCS recipient. The court awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees of $23,455.00 and double costs of $1,339.92, noting the defendant had previously rejected the plaintiff's offer of judgment. The judgment was later affirmed on appeal.

Understanding This Case

  • This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
  • This case was resolved in Maricopa County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2012, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.

VerdictlyTM Score

96
/100
Highly Fair

This outcome aligns very well with similar cases

This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.

Want to know what your case might be worth?

Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Maricopa County.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

$30,000
Settlement
Lumbar Disc Injury
Rear-end
Motor Vehicle Negligence

On May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

Kings County • 2010
View full case