DocketNumber: No. 16–0851
Citation Numbers: 559 S.W.3d 128
Filed Date: 4/27/2018
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
1 Ante at 131 (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a) ).
2 Ante at 135.
3 Ante at 135.
4 Ante at 135.
5 Ante at 135.
6 Ante at 135.
7
8
9
10
11
12 Haygood ,
13 See George A. Nation III, Determining the Fair and Reasonable Value of Medical Services: The Affordable Care Act, Government Insurers, Private Insurers and Uninsured Patients ,
14 Haygood ,
15 See George A. Nation, III, Obscene Contracts: The Doctrine of Unconscionability and Hospital Billing of the Uninsured , 94 KY. L.J. 101, 104 (2005-2006) (stating that a hospital's list prices "are generally at least double and may be up to eight times what the hospital would accept as payment in full for the same services" from a private or governmental insurer), cited in Haygood ,
16 Haygood ,
17 Id. n.20.
18
19 Of course, a healthcare provider is free to charge whatever it chooses for its services, whether reasonable or not, just as any service provider can, and the consumer is free to choose another healthcare provider that charges less. But patients are not usually in a position to investigate and compare different hospitals' charges, and obviously they cannot do so when they present to the emergency room. Amici curiae Christus Health and Texas Health Resources argue that not all charges secured by a lien under the Hospital Lien Act need be reasonable. They point out that a lien can include only reasonable and necessary charges for a physician's emergency hospital care, Tex. Prop. Code § 55.004(c), and does not cover charges for emergency medical services or other services that exceed a reasonable and regular rate, id. § 55.004(d)(1), (g)(1), but otherwise "[a] hospital lien ... is for the amount of the hospital's charges for services provided", id. § 55.004(b). But see Daughters of Charity Health Servs. v. Linnstaedter ,
20 See
21
22
23
id="fr24">24
25 In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. ,
26
27
28
29
30 In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. ,
31 Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4(b) ; see also In re State Farm Lloyds ,
32 Roberts has pleaded claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq. , the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001 et seq. , and the Fraudulent Lien Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 12.001 et seq. She seeks actual and exemplary damages, attorney fees, and declaratory relief. She also claims that North Cypress' lien is invalid because she was never formally admitted for treatment, but this claim does not involve the discovery dispute before us.
33 Inst. for the Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys., Final Report on the Joint Project of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and Civil Justice and IAALS 2 (2009).
34 In re Nat'l Lloyds ,
--------