Christensen v. Swedish Hospital

• Decision Date: 15 February 1962
• Docket Number: No. 36130,36130
• Citation: 368 P.2d 897,59 Wn.2d 545
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Clarance A. CHRISTENSEN and Elsie M. Christensen, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The SWEDISH HOSPITAL, a corporation, Respondent.

Page 545

59 Wn.2d 545

368 P.2d 897

Clarance A. CHRISTENSEN and Elsie M. Christensen, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The SWEDISH HOSPITAL, a corporation, Respondent.

No. 36130.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

Feb. 15, 1962.

Sharp & Bishop, Clarkston, McCarthy & Adams, Lewiston, Idaho, for appellants.

Rosling, Williams, Lanza & Kastner, Seattle, for respondent.

OTT, Judge.

December 18, 1960, Clarance A. Christensen delivered to the Swedish Hospital in Seattle his personal check in the sum of $630.40 to pay the hospital for services performed from November 20, 1960, to December 18, 1960. December 19, 1960, he stopped payment on the check, contending that the hospital had not properly cared for him during his hospitalization, to his damage in excess of the amount of the account, and that, therefore, he was not indebted to the hospital.

The manager of the hospital, after contacting the Christensens by telephone and by mail, wrote the following letter to them on February 9, 1961:

'After I talked to Mrs. Christensen over the phone earlier this week regarding your account, I fully reviewed with our hospital Administrator the matters which we discussed.

'In our telephone conversation Mrs. Christensen indicated that she still felt we had been negligent regarding the care furnished to you, Mr. Christensen, and felt we were not entitled to payment of the balance of $816.43 on our account.

'I fully explained in an earlier letter of January 20 the fact that we reviewed your records with the attending physicians and found no evidence of negligence on their part or on the part of anyone on the hospital staff. I pointed out that they had checked very carefully for the possibility of any postoperative infection, and that accusations of negligence are poorly considered.

'We rendered the very best of care to you, Mr. Christensen, and to you, Mrs. Christensen, and we are sadly disappointed with the attitude being taken regarding payment of a legitimate bill. We are writing this final letter in the hope that you will reconsider your earlier decision to refuse payment, a decision which we feel was hastily made and for which we believe you may not have considered all the consequences.

'If payment in full of the balance of $816.43 is made within ten days of date of this letter, we will be happy to accept it in full of the account. However, if that payment is not forthcoming, we will have no choice but to refer this matter to our legal representative with instructions to bring immediate suit against you for collection. We would also be forced to instruct our legal representative to refer to the prosecuting attorney the check in the amount of $630.40, on which you stopped payment.

'These actions would entail additional expense to you, as we can assure you that any court will uphold our right to collect from you payment for a legitimate bill for hospital services.

'Again, I trust that you will reconsider your earlier decision and remit payment promptly. A summary statement of your account is enclosed with this letter for your information. Please note and in a recent letter to the King County Blood Bank we asked them to bill you directly for $123.00 of their fees which were on your statement. However, this figure has been changed to only $63.00.'

April 25, 1961, Clarance A. Christensen and wife commenced this action against the hospital. The amended complaint asserted two claims: (1) For damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the hospital in failing to furnish proper care to Clarance Christensen, and (2) for damages to both plaintiffs resulting from the hospital manager's letter above set out, in that thereby

'* * * the defendant wilfully, maliciously and intentionally threatened plaintiffs with criminal prosecution for stopping payment on the above mentioned check; * * * that said threat was made with full knowledge of the age and extreme poor physical condition of both plaintiffs and with a complete disregard and indifference as to the consequences of such threat; that the threat of criminal prosecution has caused both plaintiffs great mental anguish, severe emotional distress and fear for their personal liberty. That each plaintiff has been damaged to the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) thereby.' (Italics ours.)

The defendant hospital moved for dismissal of the second claim for the reason that it 'fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'

From an order dismissing the second claim with prejudice, the plaintiffs have appealed.

Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 8, RCW Vol....