Opinion ID: 2638118
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: It Was Error To Reject Smallwood's UTPA Claim.

Text: The superior court concluded that Smallwood's UTPA claim was exempted from the UTPA because balance billing is already prohibited under Medicaid law. Smallwood argues on appeal that the superior court failed to address his actual UTPA claim that the hospital's bills are confusing. The hospital admits that the superior court did not address Smallwood's billing format claim, but urges us to affirm the superior court's decision regardless. It argues that the UTPA claim fails because Smallwood did not suffer actual damages or show that the billing format confused him in the sale of medical services, and because his claim is time-barred.
Count IV of Smallwood's complaint alleged that the hospital's billing practices violate AS 45.50.471(b)(11) [44] because they create the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding and have in fact misled Mr. Smallwood in connection with the sale of medical services. [45] Alaska Statute 45.50.471(a) declares that unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful. Subsection .471(b)(11) defines unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices as including engaging in any other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and which misleads, deceives or damages a buyer or a competitor in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services. [46] But AS 45.50.481(a)(1) exempts from the UTPA any acts or transactions regulated under laws administered by the state, [or] by a regulatory board or commission . . . unless the law regulating the act or transaction does not prohibit the practices declared unlawful in AS 45.50.471. We apply a two-part test to determine whether an act or practice is exempt under AS 45.50.481(a)(1). In State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc ., we explained that subsection .481(a)(1) exempts unfair acts and practices from the purview of the UTPA only where the business is both regulated elsewhere and the unfair acts and practices are therein prohibited. [47] In this case, provider billing is regulated by federal and state Medicaid laws and regulations. [48] But none of those statutory provisions or regulations governs the form of the provider billing statement or prohibits billing practices that creat[e][a] likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. [49] Smallwood's claim is therefore not exempted from the UTPA by AS 45.50.481(a)(1).
The hospital argues here, as it did below, that Smallwood's UTPA claim is time-barred by AS 45.50.531(f). The superior court did not address the statute of limitations issue. Alaska Statute 45.50.531(f) bars UTPA damages claims filed more than two years after the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the loss resulted from an act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471. There is no corollary time bar in the UTPA for claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. [50] Smallwood's complaint pleaded a claim for damages, but his briefing on summary judgment explained that he had not alleged actual damages against the hospital. [51] On appeal Smallwood has waived any claim for monetary damages by conceding in his reply brief that he did not seek actual damages in the superior court. We therefore do not need to consider whether any damages claim by Smallwood would have been time-barred under AS 45.50.531(f). [52] And because AS 45.50.535the provision through which a plaintiff may pursue injunctive relief for violations of the UTPAdoes not provide a time limitation, we hold that Smallwood's UTPA claim for injunctive relief is not time-barred. [53]
The hospital also argues that Smallwood cannot assert a UTPA claim because he did not suffer actual damages. Although Smallwood admits he never alleged actual damages, he contends that he may still seek injunctive relief. A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief under the UTPA even if he has not suffered actual damages. Alaska Statute 45.50.535 states that any person who was the victim of the unlawful act, whether or not the person suffered actual damages, may bring an action to obtain an injunction prohibiting a seller or lessor from continuing to engage in an act or practice declared unlawful under AS 45.50.471. [54] The hospital and Smallwood disagree whether, in the words of AS 45.50.471(11), the billing format creat[ed] a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and misle[d], deceive[d] or damage[d] [Smallwood] in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services. [55] We remand this issue for determination whether injunctive relief is appropriate given our holding that the alleged violation is not exempted or time-barred. [56]