Jeff Nelson v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2017, 5:25 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Robert T. Garwood Patrick C. Thomas
Evansville, Indiana Matthew D. Malcolm
Evansville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeff Nelson, August 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A01-1611-CC-2690
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
Deaconess Hospital, Inc., The Honorable Robert J. Tornatta,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D06-1506-CC-3030
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Jeff Nelson appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment against him in favor
of Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (Deaconess) on its action to collect outstanding
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 6
medical bills. On appeal, Nelson argues that the trial court’s judgment was
clearly erroneous.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Nelson received emergency medical services at Deaconess on July 20, 2010.
Nelson had medical coverage through Pekin Insurance (Pekin) at that time, but
he did not provide his insurance information to Deaconess. Upon his
admission to the hospital, Nelson signed a Financial Responsibility Form
(FRF) in which he agreed to be responsible for the costs associated with his
hospitalization. The FRF also contained the following language:
If you have active insurance coverage, we will bill your insurance
company. It is the patient’s responsibility to understand his/her
insurance coverage. You will receive a monthly statement if
your account has a patient due balance. Payment of deductibles,
non-covered services and co-payments are the patient’s
responsibility.
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 3 at 7. Nelson also signed a Consent for Medical
Treatment form (Consent), which listed his rights and responsibilities as a
patient. Among the responsibilities listed was that Nelson would “assure that
financial obligations are fulfilled as promptly as possible.” Id. at 10.
[4] Following Nelson’s discharge, Deaconess billed him separately for each of the
four services he received. Because Deaconess had not been provided with
Nelson’s insurance information, it did not bill Pekin for any portion of those
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 6
expenses. Instead, Deaconess sent Nelson a total of eight invoices (two for
each service he received), each of which instructed Nelson to check a box if his
insurance information had changed and indicate such changes on the reverse
side. All of the invoices listed an insurance balance of zero.
[5] Deaconess received neither payment nor insurance information from Nelson,
so it forwarded the accounts to its extended billing office, Complete Billing
Services (CBS). CBS mailed Nelson multiple letters demanding payment on
Deaconess’s behalf. Nelson received letters from CBS but claims that he
questioned their legitimacy. When a CBS representative contacted Nelson by
phone, Nelson refused to verify his information. Despite CBS’s repeated
requests for payment, Nelson did not contact Deaconess to determine whether
CBS was authorized to act on its behalf. When CBS was unsuccessful in
collecting payment from Nelson, the accounts were assigned to a collection
agency, which also mailed letters to Nelson and attempted to telephone him
regarding the balances due. All collection efforts were unsuccessful.
[6] Deaconess filed its complaint for unpaid medical bills against Nelson on July
27, 2015. A bench trial was held on October 27, 2016, at the conclusion of
which the trial court found in Deaconess’s favor and entered judgment against
Nelson in the amount of $9,250.00. Nelson now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[7] Although the parties did not request special findings and conclusions thereon
pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A), the trial court sua sponte made limited oral
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 6
findings from the bench. See Nunn Law Office v. Rosenthal, 905 N.E.2d 513, 517-
18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that oral findings and conclusions may suffice
for the purposes of T.R. 52(A)). Pursuant to T.R. 52(A), we “shall not set aside
the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given
to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Further, where, as here, the trial court enters findings sua sponte, “the specific
findings control only as to the issues they cover, while a general judgment
standard applies to any issues upon which the court has not made findings.” In
re Estate of Hannebaum, 999 N.E.2d 972, 973-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A general
judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence presented
at trial. Kietzman v. Kietzman, 992 N.E.2d 946, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[8] Nelson’s appellate arguments are based on evidence unfavorable to the trial
court’s judgment.1 Specifically, he argues that when he received one of the first
invoices from Deaconess, he mailed the bill and his insurance information back
to Deaconess. Nelson claims he received no further correspondence from
Deaconess, and consequently believed the matter to be resolved. Nelson argues
that Deaconess was obligated under the terms of the FRF to bill Pekin for the
services he received, and that Deaconess’s failure to do so within the time
allotted under his Pekin insurance policy resulted in a loss of insurance
coverage. In other words, Nelson argues that Deaconess was required to bill
1
We remind Nelson’s counsel of his duty under the appellate rules to recite the facts according to the
applicable standard of review and to support factual assertions with citation to the record. See Ind. App. R.
22(C); Ind. App. R. 46(A)(5), (6), (8).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 6
Pekin “[a]s a condition precedent to any financial responsibility” on Nelson’s
part, and that it breached the contract by failing to do so. Appellant’s Brief at 10.
[9] Nelson fails to note, however, that a Deaconess representative testified that
Deaconess never received Nelson’s insurance information, and the trial court
made no findings on this issue. Thus, the general judgment standard applies to
this issue, and we are obliged to consider only the evidence favorable to
Deaconess as the prevailing party and the reasonable inferences flowing
therefrom. See Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 402 n.5 (Ind. 1991) (noting
that in reviewing general judgments issued in civil cases tried to the bench, the
appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
witnesses, and considers only the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and
the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it).
[10] Nelson agreed in the FRF to be responsible for the costs associated with his
hospitalization, and the evidence and inferences favorable to the judgment
establish that Nelson did not provide Deaconess with his insurance information
despite its continued collection efforts. Thus, even if we assume it was solely
Deaconess’s responsibility under the FRF to see to it that Nelson’s insurer was
billed for the services Nelson received, Nelson prevented Deaconess from doing
so. “[T]he common law of contracts excuses performance of one party where
the other party wrongfully prevents that performance.” Rogier v. Am. Testing &
Eng’g Corp., 734 N.E.2d 606, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. See also
Hamlin v. Steward, 622 N.E.2d 535, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that “a
party may not rely on the failure of a condition precedent to excuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 6
performance where that party’s action or inaction caused the condition to be
unfulfilled” (quoting Kokomo Veterans, Inc. v. Schick, 439 N.E.2d 639, 645 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1982), trans. denied)). Because Nelson’s failure to provide his
insurance information made it impossible for Deaconess to bill Pekin, Nelson
cannot escape liability for his medical bills on that basis. Furthermore, because
we can affirm the trial court’s judgment fully on this basis, we need not address
the other specific arguments Nelson raises on appeal.
[11] Judgment affirmed.
[12] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 6