Hall v. Regents of University of New Mexico
| Decision Date | 11 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 16941,16941 |
| Citation | 106 N.M. 167,1987 NMSC 69,740 P.2d 1151 |
| Parties | , 41 Ed. Law Rep. 358 R.J. HALL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barry Hall, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The trial court entered a declaratory judgment declaring that appellants were not entitled to assert a hospital lien against damages recovered by appellee in a wrongful death action. We reverse.
Appellants operate a public hospital (hospital). The hospital provided necessary services to Barry Hall from July 2, 1984 through July 4, 1984. The reasonable, usual, and necessary charges for the hospital's services rendered to Barry Hall equal $6,903.82. The services rendered to Barry Hall by the hospital were for injuries he sustained in a vehicle accident not covered by the state workmen's compensation laws. Barry Hall was declared dead on July 4, 1984 as a result of injuries he sustained in the vehicle accident.
On August 21, 1984, appellants filed a notice of hospital lien containing the information required by NMSA 1978, Section 48-8-2. The hospital's lien was in complete form, properly filed, and properly served on all parties entitled to notice under the Hospital Lien Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 48-8-1 through -7.
Appellee is the duly appointed personal representative of the estate of Barry Hall. There are no assets in the estate of Barry Hall.
Appellee filed a cause of action entitled Hall v. Slominski, United States District Court, Cause Number 84-1230-M, for the wrongful death of Barry Hall. The hospital's charges were introduced into evidence as part of the wrongful death damages in Hall v. Slominski. On February 5, 1986, appellee obtained a judgment against Roy and Edwin Slominski in the amount of $80,000.00 plus $2,176.30 in costs, plus interest according to law, for the wrongful death of Barry Hall.
When appellants attempted to assert their lien against the proceeds of the wrongful death action, appellee filed this declaratory judgment action.
The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in ruling that the hospital may not assert a hospital lien under the Hospital Lien Act against damages recovered by appellee under the Wrongful Death Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 41-2-1 through -4 (Repl.Pamp.1986). The district court erred.
The legal problem presented by this case arises from a conflict between Section 48-8-1(A) of the Hospital Lien Act and Section 41-2-3 of the Wrongful Death Act. NMSA 1978, Section 41-2-3 (Repl.Pamp.1986) provides in part: "The proceeds of any judgment obtained in [a wrongful death action] shall not be liable for any debt of the deceased * * *." NMSA 1978, Section 48-8-1(A) provides:
Every hospital located within the state that furnishes emergency, medical or other service to any patient injured by reason of an accident not covered by the state workmen's compensation laws is entitled to assert a lien upon that part of the judgment, settlement or compromise going, or belonging to such patient * * * based upon injuries suffered by the patient or a claim maintained by the heirs or personal representatives of the injured party in the case of the patient's death. (Emphasis added.)
The conflict between Sections 41-2-3 and 48-8-1(A) is apparent and irreconcilable. On the one hand, the Hospital Lien Act provides that a hospital may assert a lien against a judgment obtained by the decedent's personal representative in order to satisfy a debt of the decedent; on the other hand, the Wrongful Death Act prohibits using the proceeds of a wrongful death action to satisfy the decedent's creditors.
We recognize that repeal by implication is disfavored. See Clothier v. Lopez, 103 N.M. 593, 711 P.2d 870 (1985). Nevertheless, when two statutes are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nez v. United States
...decedent, as well as for any medical and hospital expenses incurred by the decedent prior to her death. Hall v. Regents of Univ. of New Mexico , 106 N.M. 167, 740 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1987) (citing Stang v. Hertz Corp. , 81 N.M. 348, 467 P.2d 14 (1970) ( Stang II ) ). 38. The purpose of the Wro......
-
State v. Smith
...implication of other legislation passed in the same session. Repeals by implication are not favored. See Hall v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 106 N.M. 167, 168, 740 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1987); Rue, 72 N.M. at 216, 382 P.2d at {23} Finally, we do not encroach upon principles of separation of powers......
-
State v. Smith
...HB 278. Thus, the repeal would of necessity be by implication. Repeals by implication are not favored. Hall v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 106 N.M. 167, 168, 740 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1987). {28} What does speak volumes about the Legislature's intent are the facts that the first two bills were pas......
-
Costain v. REGULATION & LICENSING DEPT.
...disfavors the implied repeal of a statute by the subsequent enactment of another statute, see, e.g., Hall v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 106 N.M. 167, 168, 740 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1987) (stating that as a general rule, implied repeals of legislation are disapproved), also applies to the implied ......