Berman v. Group Health Association, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7356.,7356. |
| Citation | 316 A.2d 863 |
| Parties | Joseph BERMAN, Appellant, v. GROUP HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Joseph Berman, pro se.
Joel Savits, Washington, D. C., with whom William H. Seckinger, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before GALLAGHER, PAIR and YEAGLEY, Associate Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment entered in the Civil Division of the Superior Court granting Group Health Association (GHA) recovery for money received by appellant under a health insurance policy with another insurer. Appellant makes numerous claims of error but we find it necessary to consider only whether the court erred in (1) granting GHA's motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) denying him a jury trial.
GHA complained against appellant demanding "any payments or benefits received by him under any accident or health plan other than that of G.H.A." In his answer to the complaint, appellant admitted that he had received benefits under a health and accident insurance policy carried by the Aetna Life and Casualty Company, but insisted that he, not GHA, was entitled to the moneys.
By Article II, Section 2:5(5) of the Bylaws of GHA, it was provided:
Any person accepting medical or dental treatment or attendance or hospitalization services procured by GHA shall be deemed by so doing to have . . . (5) agreed that, if the member or dependent receives benefits under an accident or health plan, other than through a plan of GHA, for services provided at GHA's expense, GHA reserves the right to obtain reimbursement from the member (and/or dependent) for the cost of the services provided (and/or reasonable value of the services provided) . . . .
The validity of such a provision was upheld in White v. Group Health Association, D.C.App., 294 A.2d 870 (1972). Appellant contends, however, that White is distinguishable because his was an individual contract with GHA and not a group health contract as was the case in White. Appellant, for reasons best known to himself, did not append a copy of the contract to his opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment as required by Super. Ct.Civ.R. 56(e), and it does not appear that any such contract was ever brought to the attention of the trial court. We cannot, of course, consider any matter not of record.1
Thus, on the record brought here, there was no genuine issue of material fact such as would have precluded the grant of partial summary judgment on the issue of appellant's liability to GHA.
While the entry of the summary judgment determined that appellant was answerable to GHA for some amount, it did not determine the amount. Thus, the extent of appellant's liability to GHA remained the subject of inquiry. Barber v. Turberville, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 218 F.2d 34 (1954).2 The trial court thereupon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
2023 BR Holdings, LLC v. Williams, Case No.: PWG-17-320
...judgment as to liability on a note was proper when defendants failed to raise genuine issues as to liability) (citing Berman v. Grp. Health Ass'n, 316 A.2d 863 (D.C. 1974)). Williams, however, disputes whether it is 2023 BR to whom he is liable, arguing that there is a genuine dispute of ma......
-
Alger Corporation v. Wesley
...as to appellants' liability on the note, the court did not err in granting partial summary judgment. See Berman v. Group Health Association, Inc., D.C.App., 316 A.2d 863 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 842, 95 S.Ct. 75, 42 L.Ed.2d 70 (1975); Dillard v. Travelers Insurance Co., D.C. App., 298......