Drearr v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: McBRIDE
• Citation: Drearr v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 119 So.2d 149 (La. App. 1960)
• Decision Date: 28 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 21378,21378
• Parties: Joseph DREARR v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 149

119 So.2d 149

Joseph DREARR v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 21378.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.

March 28, 1960.

George Sladovich, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims and J. Barnwell Phelps, New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff, a United States war veteran, was confined in the Veterans' Administration Hospital at New Orleans from February 24 until June 4, 1957, for treatment of and surgery for a duodenal ulcer, and he now sues in forma pauperis the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company for $1,038.50, the amount of an alleged bill rendered by the Veterans' Administration, on the ground said insurer, under a Certificate of Group Insurance, contracted to pay him 'for the expense incurred (a) for hospital charges for bed and board and (b) for hospital charges for necessary services and supplies * * *.'

The suit is defended on the ground plaintiff, as a qualified veteran, was entitled to free treatment at said hospital and incurred no expense whatsoever in connection with any of the services rendered him.

After a trial on the merits of the case, at which the testimony of only one witness was heard, viz., the Assistant Registrar of the local office of the Veterans' Administration, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff's demands and he has appealed therefrom to this court.

The Assistant Registrar testified that there was submitted to plaintiff a statement of the services rendered which 'is a form of a bill' in the amount of $1,038.50, but the witness admitted no effort was made to collect the bill and there is no intention to sue the plaintiff for any indebtedness.

There was also introduced in evidence on behalf of plaintiff a letter written by a local attorney of the Veterans' Administration to plaintiff's counsel in which it is stated:

'I thought it might be helpful to you to know that the Veterans Administration Solicitor has held in an opinion identified as No. 74--53 that if a veteran is entitled to needed hospitalization and medical care from some other source, such as an insurance company, he should be advised upon admission to the hospital that he cannot properly execute the 'No' block in the questionnaire he is required ot sign as to his ability to pay for the hospitalization. Thus in Mr. Drearr's case since he could not properly certify that he was unable to pay for treatment the VA Hospital was not required or even permitted to furnish him free services.'

We simply cannot reconcile the testimony of the witness and the quoted portion of the attorney's letter with the material provisions of the federal statute under which plaintiff was admitted to the Veterans' Hospital (then38 U.S.C.A. § 706), ¹ which reads in part as follows:

'* * * the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is authorized under such limitations as he may prescribe, and within the limits of existing Veterans' Administration facilities, to furnish to * * * veterans of any war * * * medical and hospital treatment for diseases or injuries: Provided, that any veteran of any war who was not dishonorably discharged, suffering from disability, disease or defect, who is in need of hospitalization or domiciliary care and is unable to defray the necessary expenses therefor (including transportation to and from the Veterans' Administration facility), shall be furnished necessary hospitalization or domiciliary care (including transportation) in any Veterans' Administration facility, within the limitations existing in such facilities, irrespective of whether the disability, disease, or defect was due to service. The statement under oath of the applicant on such form as may be prescribed by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall be accepted as sufficient evidence of inability to defray necessary expenses * * *.'

A most cursory reading of the statute is sufficient to convince anyone that as a veteran plaintiff, upon admission to the hospital, was entitled to free care and treatment for his ailment if he made the required statement under oath on the form prescribed by the Administrator setting forth his inability to defray necessary expenses. If his financial status was such that he could not subscribe to such oath, then the plaintiff veteran did not possess eligibility for admission in the first place.

The statute was passed upon in several cases decided by federal courts on the question whether a veteran can be charged for services rendered in a veterans' facility.

An almost identical situation as exists here is to be found in United States v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, 8 Cir., 238 F.2d 594, 595, the only distinguishing feature being that in the cited case the government, under an assignment from the veteran, brought suit against an insurer which had issued a hospitalization policy to recover for services rendered to the insured in a veterans' facility. Quoting from the case:

'The insurer refused to recognize the purported charges as 'expenses actually incurred by the Insured', within the terms of the policy, upon the grounds that the insured had sought and qualified for admission, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 706, as a veteran entitled to free care and treatment for his ailment; that in this situation the Veterans' Administration was without authority under the statute to make any charge against him for the care and treatment furnished him; that any charge attempted to be made would therefore not constitute legally an obligation against him; that it could accordingly not be claimed to represent 'expenses actually incurred by the Insured'; that the insured himself thus would be without any recovery right upon the policy for this care and treatment; and that necessarily in these circumstances the insurer equally could have no liability to the Veterans' Administration as assignee of the insured's rights.'

After thoroughly considering the statute and regulations thereunder, the court concluded that the government's claim should be dismissed. The court further said:

"Incur emphasizes the idea of liability * * *'. Webster's New International Dictionary. 1. Bouv.Law Dict., Rawle's Third Revision, p. 1531 similarly points to this...