Opinion ID: 901638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Patients' Beliefs Concerning Post-Care Charges

Text: [¶ 38.] Patients finally allege that they  believed that Defendant[s] would make good faith efforts to determine a person's ability to pay following evaluation or treatment and would not bill or charge those . . . who were unable to pay. Thus [they] believed that free care or reduced cost care would be provided . . . based upon [their] ability to pay. . . . (Emphasis added.) However, these conclusory statements of belief are not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. [¶ 39.] To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege causation with sufficient particularity such that we can determine whether the factual basis for its claim, if proven, could support an inference of proximate cause. First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 770 (2dCir.1994). `[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.' 2 James Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, § 12.34(1)(b) (3rd ed 2006) (quoting Campbell v. San Antonio 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir.1995)). While facts must be accepted as alleged, this does not automatically extend to bald assertions, subjective characterizations, or legal conclusions. The plaintiff need not include evidentiary detail, but must allege a factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further proceedings. Id. (quoting DM Research v. College of American Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55-56 (1st Cir.1999) (citations omitted)). [¶ 40.] In this case, Patients have only pleaded subjective characterizations of belief and legal conclusions of proximate cause that are untethered to any factual predicate that could constitute causation. In fact, Patients' subjective beliefs are totally at odds with their pleadings. Patients did not plead that the Hospitals made any representations involving post-care determinations of ability to pay. Furthermore, Patients' alleged damages could not have arisen as a result of such beliefs because they did not plead that it was their beliefs that caused them to select these Hospitals in lieu of other healthcare providers. Rather than alleging that they sought care at these facilities because they believed they would receive post-treatment reduction of charges, they specifically alleged that they entered into contracts that required them to pay the full, undiscounted prices that were pre-set by the Hospitals. Therefore, Patients' subjective and conclusory allegations of belief and proximate cause failed to state a claim of causation. [¶ 41.] For all of the foregoing reasons, the circuit courts' dismissals are affirmed. In light of this disposition of the substantive theories that are central to each case, we need not reach the parties' remaining issues and arguments. [¶ 42.] Affirmed. [¶ 43.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, and MACY, Circuit Court Judge, concur. [¶ 44.] MACY, Circuit Court Judge, for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.