Is a hospital that treated a crime victim entitled to restitution under section 1202.4?

People v. Slattery (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1091, 10961097, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, held that a hospital that treated a crime victim was also not a direct victim of the crime under section 1202.4, subdivision (k)(2).

Where, as here, a court denies probation and imposes a prison sentence, " section 1202.4 limits the scope of victim restitution to losses caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant sustained the conviction." ( Woods , supra , 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1050, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 ; see also People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 550, 559, 113 Cal.Rptr. 248 ["The government may be [reimbursed as a crime victim] if it has incurred actual loss due to the crime, as in the instance of tax evasion or theft of government property, but [ ] not [for] the general costs of prosecuting and rehabilitating criminals"].) Not being placed on probation, defendant is not subject to reasonable conditions and costs associated with probation supervision. (See 1203.1, 1203.1b.) She was convicted of human trafficking, and her extradition did not arise out of the conduct which formed the basis of her conviction. The county was not a direct victim of defendant's crime, and the trial court exceeded its authority under section 1202.4 by ordering restitution for the cost of defendant's restitution.