Univ. Hosp. v. Campbell , 2012 Ohio 1909 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Univ. Hosp. v. Campbell, 2012-Ohio-1909.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, : APPEAL NO. C-110285
TRIAL NO. A-0911812
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : OPINION ON
RECONSIDERATION
DONALD CAMPBELL, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 1, 2012
Dreyfuss Williams & Associates Co., LPA, Claire C. Curtis and Michael T. Williams,
for Plaintiff-Appellee,
O’Connor, Acciani & Levy and Robert A. Burke, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
H ILDEBRANDT , Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Donald Campbell appeals the summary
judgment entered by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in favor of
plaintiff-appellee The University Hospital (“University”) in a suit to collect payment
for medical services.
Campbell’s Medical Bill and His Discovery Request
{¶2} In 2009, Campbell was treated at University. At the time of his
treatment, he did not have medical-insurance coverage. On December 15, 2009,
University filed a complaint against Campbell alleging that he had failed to pay for
the services. University sought compensation in the amount of $2,729.80.
{¶3} During discovery, Campbell sought production of University’s
contracts with insurers to demonstrate that University had routinely allowed
discounts, or “write-offs,” to patients who had medical-insurance coverage. When
University refused to produce those contracts, Campbell filed a motion to compel
their production.
{¶4} In July 2010, University filed a motion for summary judgment.
The motion was supported by the affidavit of University’s manager of patient
financial services, who averred that Campbell owed the amount sought in the
complaint. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of University for the
full amount.
{¶5} In an opinion released April 20, 2012, this court affirmed the
judgment of the trial court. In doing so, we stated that University had “conceded
that its standard practice was to afford a 40-percent discount to insured patients”
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} On April 27, 2012, University filed a Motion to Correct a Factual
Misstatement in the Opinion, asserting that the record reflected a 40-percent
discount for “uninsured patients once they have exhausted all other avenues of
payment, including third-party liability.” We treat this filing as a motion for
reconsideration, and because the original opinion does include the asserted
misstatement, we grant the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we hereby vacate the
opinion released April 20, 2012, and substitute this opinion for the vacated opinion.
Nonetheless, as the misstatement does not affect the outcome of the appeal, we again
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The Motion to Compel
{¶7} In a single assignment of error, Campbell contends that the trial
court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of University. He first argues
that the court erred in denying his motion to compel the production of the contracts
reflecting write-offs for insured patients. He argues that the write-offs accorded to
insurers were relevant to demonstrate that the amount he had been charged was
unreasonable.
{¶8} We find no merit in Campbell’s argument. An appellate court
reviews the trial court’s disposition of discovery matters under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Grace v. Mastruserio, 182 Ohio App.3d 243, 2007-Ohio-3942,
912 N.E.2d 608, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. As we discuss fully below, the amount University charged insured
patients was irrelevant to the value of the services rendered to Campbell, who was
uninsured. Thus, the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel was not arbitrary,
unreasonable, or unconscionable.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Reasonable Value of Medical Services
{¶9} Campbell next argues that the trial court’s entry of summary
judgment was erroneous.
{¶10} Under Civ.R. 56(C), a motion for summary judgment may be
granted only when no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated, the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and it appears from the
evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and with the
evidence construed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is
adverse to that party. See State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri, 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 589,
639 N.E.2d 1189 (1994). This court reviews a ruling on summary judgment de novo.
Jorg v. Cincinnati Black United Front, 153 Ohio App.3d 258, 2003-Ohio-3668, 792
N.E.2d 781 (1st Dist.).
{¶11} In this case, summary judgment was proper. Although the value of
medical services is a question of fact, a hospital is entitled to a presumption that the
value of the services rendered is the amount of its customary charge. See Miami
Valley Hosp. v. Middleton, 2nd Dist. No. 24240, 2011-Ohio-5069, ¶ 21, citing St.
Vincent Med. Ctr. v. Sader, 100 Ohio App.3d 379, 384, 654 N.E.2d 144 (6th
Dist.1995).
{¶12} Here, University provided itemized statements of the treatment
administered to Campbell with an affidavit stating that Campbell owed the hospital
the amounts specified in the statements. Campbell did not dispute that he had
received the specified treatment, and he presented no competent evidence to
demonstrate that the charges were excessive.
{¶13} But Campbell argues that the trial court erred in refusing to
consider University’s practice of granting write-offs to insured patients. He contends
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that such evidence would have indicated that the charges in the case at bar were
unreasonable. In support of his argument, he cites Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d
17, 2006-Ohio-6362, 857 N.E.2d 1195, and Jaques v. Manton, 125 Ohio St.3d 342,
2010-Ohio-1838, 928 N.E.2d 434.
{¶14} Robinson and Jaques addressed whether insurance write-offs were
admissible to demonstrate the reasonable costs of medical fees under the common-
law collateral-source rule and under R.C. 2315.20, which governs evidence of
collateral benefits in tort actions. See Robinson at ¶ 17 (both the original medical bill
and the amount accepted as payment in full were not admissible under the collateral-
source rule); Jaques at ¶ 15 (write-offs were admissible under R.C. 2315.20). The
issue in both cases was whether a tortfeasor in a personal-injury action was entitled
to offer proof of a write-off to reduce the amount an insured plaintiff could recover.
{¶15} Thus, the disputes in Robinson and Jaques concerned the effect of
a write-off in a tort action where such a discount had already occurred; the cases did
not create or recognize a right to any reduction in charges for an uninsured obligor in
a collections case. See Middleton at ¶ 27 (noting that Robinson did not address the
issue of insurance write-offs in collections cases).
{¶16} Campbell cites a case from the Portage County Court of Common
Pleas for the proposition that write-offs are relevant in determining the reasonable
value of services in a collections case. See Akron Gen. Med. Ctr. v. Welms, 160 Ohio
Misc.2d 1, 2010-Ohio-5539, 937 N.E.2d 1106 (C.P.). But we are not bound by
Welms, which extended the holding in Robinson beyond its proper scope.
{¶17} Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to
consider University’s billing practices with respect to insured patients. University
was entitled to grant write-offs to insured patients in consideration of the volume of
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
business conducted with insurers, and Campbell has failed to demonstrate that the
amount billed by University in this case was unreasonable. We overrule the
assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶18} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DINKELACKER and FISCHER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
6