|
4665 A health care provider's failure to disclose the availability of a discount it offered to insurers who paid promptly was not fraudulent, since the provider was not required to provide any discount at all, and reasonable patients were not likely to be operating under the expectation that they were entitled to a discount; plaintiff's action under the Unfair Competition Law could not be supported on the basis that defendant's business practice was unfair in the absence of allegations that they violated a legislatively declared policy or were likely to have some impact on competition.CitationBULLER v SUTTER HEALTH (Undisclosed Discount) 160 CA4 981 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; Berryman v Merit 152 CA4 1544, T/AT 8/07; Belton v Comcast 151 CA4 1224, T/AT 8/07; Gregory v Albertson's 104 CA4 845, T/AT 1/03]
|
|
