Health Care Authority of City of Huntsville v. Madison County
Decision Date | 22 May 1992 |
Citation | 601 So.2d 459 |
Parties | HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, d/b/a Huntsville Hospital v. MADISON COUNTY, et al. 1901638. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James P. Smith and Raymond D. Waldrop, Jr. of Smith & Waldrop, Huntsville, for appellant.
Julian D. Butler of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Huntsville, for appellees.
This case is before this Court for the second time. The background of this case is set out in Childree v. Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville, 548 So.2d 419 (Ala.1989). The issue in Childree was whether the State of Alabama, the Department of Mental Health, or Madison County was responsible for paying $700,000 in costs incurred by Huntsville Hospital for the pre-commitment care and treatment of indigent Madison County citizens who had been involuntarily committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health.
The history of this case is as follows:
Childree, 548 So.2d at 419-20.
The trial court held that the State was required to pay the costs. We reversed and held that the financial responsibility for the costs was on Madison County, stating:
We reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. On remand, the Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville, d/b/a Huntsville Hospital (the "Hospital") submitted bills, including interest, for $1,075,527.34 in psychiatric patient care for involuntarily committed indigent citizens. The Hospital filed a motion to strike the County's answer of November 15, 1989. The facts regarding the motion to strike are as follows: Madison County on November 20, 1986, filed a motion to dismiss the Hospital's complaint. That motion was overruled on December 2, 1986, and the County was allowed 20 days to file an answer. However, it did not do so until almost three years later, on November 15, 1989. The County's belated answer raised, for the first time, the Hospital's failure to comply with the Alabama statutory requirements regarding claims against counties. In ruling upon the Hospital's motion to strike, the trial court stated:
The trial court determined that the amount the Hospital could recover was limited by the Alabama Health Care Responsibility Act. The trial court held that the failure to file certain itemized claims barred the Hospital from recovery on those claims. Also, the trial court held that no prejudgment interest was owed to the Hospital. On June 12, 1991, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Hospital in the amount of $551,218.21.
First, the Hospital argues that the trial court erred in computing the sums due to it by limiting the hospital's recovery to that specified in the Alabama Health Care Responsibility Act ("AHCRA") rather than the Hospital's actual charges. The Hospital contends that the parties had stipulated to the amount actually incurred as reasonable and necessary costs and contends that the County should pay that amount. Second, the Hospital argues that the trial court erred in determining that the hospital's failure to file certain itemized claims with Madison County pursuant to § 6-5-20 and § 11-12-5 barred recovery on a substantial portion of all of the accounts. Third, the Hospital argues that the trial court erred in failing to assess any prejudgment interest on the accounts.
The Hospital contends that this Court construed § 22-52-14, Ala.Code 1975 ( ), in pari materia with § 22-21-291, Ala.Code 1975, part of the AHCRA, to determine that Madison County was responsible for the costs of involuntarily committed, indigent Madison County citizens. The Hospital argues that only § 22-21-291 applies and that the remaining sections of the AHCRA, including those sections limiting the amount the Hospital can recover, do not apply. Section 22-52-14 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "In any commitment proceeding, ... all other costs allowable by law shall be paid by the state general fund upon order of the probate judge...."
Section 22-21-291 provides as follows:
"It is the intent of the legislature to place the ultimate financial obligation for the medical treatment of indigents on the county in which the indigent resides for all those costs not fully reimbursed by other governmental programs or third-party payers."
The hospital argues that the remaining sections of the AHCRA do not apply and, more specifically, that the sections limiting the amounts that may be recovered by the hospital do not apply.
Nowhere in Childree did this Court state that only § 22-21-291 was to be read in pari materia with the involuntary commitment statutes. All of the sections of the AHCRA are applicable to the Hospital, including the portions limiting the Hospital's recovery.
The second issue raised by the Hospital is whether the trial court erred in determining that the Hospital's failure to comply with § 6-5-20 and § 11-12-5, Ala.Code 1975, barred recovery on a substantial portion of the accounts. The Hospital filed three claims with the County, the first on December 15, 1986, the second on May 9, 1989, and the third on July 10, 1990. Thereafter, the Hospital submitted a separate claim to the county as each new commitment patient was discharged.
The requirements that must be met in order to sue a county are set out in §§ 6-5-20, 11-12-5, 11-12-6, and 11-12-8. Those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Jefferson Cnty.
...have the City Parties presented any claim for damages under the procedures required by AHCRA. See Health Care Auth. of City of Huntsville v. Madison Cnty., 601 So.2d 459, 462 (Ala.1992) (claims not properly presented were barred). Again, the damage/remedy part of the equation for maintenanc......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n N.D. v. Tompkins & Somma LLC
...damages equate the precise legal fee paid, the court finds the Tompkins Defendants' reliance on Health Care Auth. of Huntsville v. Madison Cnty., 601 So. 2d 459, 462-63 (Ala. 1992), misplaced. In Health Care Authority, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the trial court's refusal to award prej......
-
Disctronics Ltd. v. Disc Mfg., Inc.
... ... of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Huntsville, for Appellants/Cross Appellees Disctronics ... , Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On February 3, 1989, all defendants, ... Disctronics Group in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, on June 13, 1990 ... The ... Furthermore, no citation to authority is even necessary to support the proposition that ... "Care must be taken to prevent the transmutation of ... ...
-
Sierra Food Grp., Inc. v. Snaclite, LLC
...or is capable of being made certain." Lapeyrouse Grain Corp. v. Tallant, 439 So.2d 105(Ala.1983); Health Care Auth. of City of Huntsville v. Madison County, 601 So. 2d 459, 463 (Ala. 1992) (no interest accrued on a hospital account until an itemized statement was filed, making the amount of......