Baptist Health Systems, Inc. v. City of Midfield
Decision Date | 02 March 2001 |
Citation | 792 So.2d 1095 |
Parties | BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v. CITY OF MIDFIELD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
C. Steven Ball of Benton & Centeno, L.L.P., Birmingham; and Ben L. Zarzaur of Zarzaur & Schwartz, Birmingham, for appellant.
James W. Porter II and Kathryn L. Harman of Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
The plaintiff Baptist Health Systems, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant City of Midfield. We affirm.
On March 7, 1995, Warren Smith, an inmate in the City of Midfield jail, became ill. It was the policy of the Midfield Police Department to transport uninsured prisoners who became ill to Cooper Green Hospital. The police personnel telephoned an ambulance company and directed that Smith be taken to Cooper Green Hospital.
While the ambulance was en route to Cooper Green Hospital, Smith's condition worsened; therefore, Smith was taken instead to the nearest hospital, which was Baptist Medical Center Princeton. When he was admitted to that hospital, Smith was unable to sign a form entitled "Conditions of Admission and Consent for Treatment." No one from the City of Midfield signed any form concerning Smith's admission to Baptist Medical Center Princeton.
Smith remained in the hospital until March 21, 1995. The charges for the hospitalization totaled $55,089. The hospital demanded that the City of Midfield pay the bill, but the City refused to do so. Baptist Medical Center Princeton is operated by Baptist Health Systems, Inc. ("Baptist Health"). On October 8, 1997, Baptist Health sued Warren Smith and the City of Midfield, seeking to recover its charges for Smith's hospitalization. Smith was dismissed without prejudice because he could not be found for service of process.
On July 13, 1999, the City of Midfield moved for a summary judgment, contending that it had no legal liability for paying the hospital's charges for treating Smith. On September 15, 1999, Baptist Health moved for a summary judgment, contending that, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 14-6-19, the City had a duty to provide, at its own expense, medical attention to a sick inmate such as Warren Smith.
The trial court denied Baptist Health's summary-judgment motion. The court granted the City of Midfield's motion, holding that "as a matter of law ... the Defendant City of Midfield is not responsible for the medical bill of Warren Smith." Baptist Health appealed.
The issue whether an Alabama municipality can be required to pay the medical bills of its jail inmates is an issue of first impression. The hospital argues that municipal liability for such expenses can be supported by several theories. We find no merit to any of the theories.
In its summary-judgment motion, Baptist Health argued: "Pursuant to [Ala. Code 1975, § 14-6-19], the city has a duty to provide, at [its] expense, medical attention to the sick or injured that is deemed necessary." That argument is without merit. Ala.Code 1975, § 14-6-19, provides:
"Necessary clothing and bedding must be furnished by the sheriff or jailer, at the expense of the county, to those prisoners who are unable to provide them for themselves, and also necessary medicines and medical attention to those who are sick or injured, when they are unable to provide them for themselves."
(Emphasis added.) By its very terms, that section applies only to prisoners who are confined in a county jail, and its terms have been strictly construed. See Malone v. Escambia County, 116 Ala. 214, 22 So. 503 (1897), and Limestone County v. City of Huntsville Hosp. Bd., 412 So.2d 792 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). The section cannot be construed to impose any duty upon a municipality.
Baptist Health contends that the City of Midfield has a constitutional duty to provide necessary medical care for its inmates and that providing necessary medical care includes paying for the care provided. The relevant constitutional duty has been described accurately by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina:
Myrtle Beach Hosp., Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 333 S.C. 590, 593-94, 510 S.E.2d 439, 440-41 (1998), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 341 S.C. 1, 532 S.E.2d 868 (2000). We have found no Alabama statute imposing upon a municipality the obligation to pay the costs of medical treatment rendered to a person in its custody. In the absence of a constitutional or statutory duty, the municipality cannot be liable for such costs unless ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kitchens v. Turquoise Properties Gulf Inc.Turquoise Properties Gulf Inc. v. Blakely M. Kitchens
...State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 794 (Ala.2000), or “to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature.” Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. City of Midfield, 792 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Ala.2001) (internal quotations omitted).’).”3. Section 6–6–14 of the AAA provides: “An award made substantially in co......
-
Kitchens v. Turquoise Properties Gulf Inc
...So. 2d 791, 794 (Ala. 2000), or "to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature." Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. City of Midfield, 792 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Ala. 2001) (internal quotations omitted).')." Volvo Trucks, __So. 3d at __. Despite the Kitchenses assertions to the contrary, our ......
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson
...State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 794 (Ala.2000), or "to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature." Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. City of Midfield, 792 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Ala.2001) (internal quotations omitted). "Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and c......
-
Volvo Trucks North Am., Inc. v. Dolphin Line, Inc.
...State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 794 (Ala.2000), or 'to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature.' Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. City of Midfield, 792 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Ala.2001) (internal quotations omitted)."). To support its position, Volvo Trucks, in its reply brief on appeal, also......