JOHN C. LINCOLN HOSP. v. Maricopa County
Decision Date | 03 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 03-0074.,1 CA-CV 03-0074. |
Citation | JOHN C. LINCOLN HOSP. v. Maricopa County, 96 P.3d 530, 208 Ariz. 532 (Ariz. App. 2004) |
Parties | JOHN C. LINCOLN HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al., all political bodies of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Gammage & Burnham By Richard B. Burnham, Cameron C. Artigue, Phoenix, and Law Offices of Thomas A. Zlaket By Thomas A. Zlaket, Tucson, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Meyer, Hendricks & Bivens, P.A.By Don Bivens, Marc Kalish, Phoenix, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee.
¶ 1The trial court entered judgment in favor of John C. Lincoln Hospital Corporation; Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc.; Chandler Regional Hospital; St. Luke's Medical Center aka Ornda St. Luke's Medical Center; and Phoenix Children's Hospital (collectively, Hospitals) against Maricopa County(County) in the amount of $1,119,677.16 as reimbursement to the Hospitals for emergency medical treatment rendered to indigent patients pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes(A.R.S.)section 11-291.01(1997).1
¶ 2 The Hospitals appealed, raising the following issues:
¶ 3 The County raises the following issues on cross-appeal:
We affirm the judgment in all respects except that we vacate the trial court's determination that the Hospitals were not entitled to prejudgment interest on their claims, and remand so the trial court may calculate and include such interest in the judgment.
¶ 4 For the past twenty years, private hospitals, including the named appellants, have submitted claims for reimbursement to the County for emergency medical treatment provided to indigent County residents.Although tens of thousands of claims have been filed, most disputes between the County and the private hospitals have been settled without litigation.However, in May 2000, the County abandoned its general policy of seeking settlement resolution of contested claims, and instead adopted a posture of litigating all disputes.
¶ 5 Thousands of submitted claims, the validity of which the County has challenged, have been consolidated into twenty-eight cycles.The 461 claims at issue in this case represent Cycles II and III, claims from patients receiving treatment in the years 1997, 1998, and 1999.After a bench trial, the court rendered a judgment requiring the County to reimburse the Hospitals for $1,119,677.16 in expenses incurred providing emergency medical services to indigents.We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B)(2003).
¶ 6We first address the issues the County raises in its cross-appeal attacking the merits of the judgment.
¶ 7 Pursuant to § 11-297(A), the County provided emergency medical care for indigents without requiring application to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS).Subsection (B)(1)(a) of the statute defined "indigent" as a person who does not have an annual income in excess of $2,500.However, even if a patient had an income exceeding the $2,500 ceiling at the time of hospital admission, the patient could become indigent during hospitalization by incurring hospital and medical charges that, after being deducted from the patient's income, qualified the patient for County medical care.2Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Yavapai County,148 Ariz. 385, 388-89, 714 P.2d 878, 881-82(App.1986);St. Joseph's Hosp. and Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa County,130 Ariz. 239, 242-44, 635 P.2d 527, 530-31(App.1981).
¶ 8 During their course of dealing over the previous two decades, the County and Hospitals stipulated to the "doctor-bill spend-down assumption," an administrative convenience to facilitate the settlement of submitted claims by which non-hospital charges, that is, medical expenses incurred by the patient before hospital admission, were treated as a fixed percentage (25%) of hospital charges.In its findings of fact, the trial court found that the County was equitably estopped from contesting the 25% spend-down figure:
The evidence preponderates in plaintiffs' favor in the establishment of the principle that the parties agreed to use certain "conventions" in their dealings over the last 20+ years in their efforts to settle similar claims....I find that the parties' history of applying these "conventions" or "protocols," including the application of a 25% "spenddown" figure for non-hospital charges, was a reasonable administrative convenience and both sides agreed to and did in fact use them.Although the witnesses' testimony conflicted on this issue, the plaintiffs' evidence preponderated when credibility is considered.Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the non-hospital charges related to the care in question is equal to 25% of the bill charges of the hospital bills and that the plaintiffs reasonably and detrimentally relied upon that convention.
¶ 9 The County argues that the trial court erred in applying the 25% assumption because: (1)§ 11-297(E)(1) only required the County to deduct verified medical expenses, therefore a fixed assumption did not comply with the statutory requirements; (2) the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that any portion of any patient's assumed spend-down was incurred before the patient's emergency hospital treatment as required under § 11-297(E)(1);(3) in several instances the Hospitals or non-hospital providers had received third-party payments, thereby releasing the patient from any obligation to pay and therefore disqualifying those charges as deductibles under § 11-297(E)(1);(4) the County stipulated to the assumption only to facilitate settlement, not for purposes of litigation, and because the assumption was never utilized outside the settlement context, Arizona Rules of Evidence(Rule) 408 precludes evidence of the assumption to prove liability or the amount of damages; and (5) the Hospitals did not reasonably rely on the assumption to their detriment.
¶ 10We first address the trial court's finding that the County was equitably estopped from contesting the spend-down figure, which, if correct, is determinative on this issue.In order to establish equitable estoppel, a party must show: (1) affirmative acts inconsistent with a claim afterwards relied upon; (2) action by a party relying on such conduct; and (3) injury to the party resulting from a repudiation of such conduct.Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue,174 Ariz. 507, 516, 851 P.2d 132, 141(App.1992).As a further consideration, the effect on the public of imposing estoppel must be assessed because estoppel will not be applied to the detriment of the public interest.Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue,191 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 32, 959 P.2d 1256, 1267(1998).Questions of estoppel, including reasonable reliance, are fact-intensive inquiries.SeeNelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp.,181 Ariz. 188, 196, 888 P.2d 1375, 1383(App.1994);Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust,141 Ariz. 80, 86, 685 P.2d 145, 151(App.1984).We defer to the trial court with respect to any factual findings explicitly or implicitly made, affirming them so long as they are not clearly erroneous, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists.Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke,204 Ariz. 251, 254, ¶ 10, 63 P.3d 282, 285(2003);Kocher v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue,206 Ariz. 480, 482, ¶ 9, 80 P.3d 287, 289(App.2003).
¶ 11 The first element of estoppel requires affirmative acts inconsistent with the position later relied on, with an action by the government requiring a considerable degree of formalism.Valencia,191 Ariz. at 577, ¶ 36, 959 P.2d at 1268.In the series of letters exchanged between the parties, each agreed to employ the 25% doctor-bill spend-down assumption to all future settlements.The letters written by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office carried the requisite formality, and the Hospitals assert the County represented through these letters that the doctor-bill assumption would apply prospectively in all cases.CompareOpen Primary Elections Now v. Bayless,193 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 14, 969 P.2d 649, 653(1998)( ).However, we note the letters did not assure, as the Hospitals contend, that the assumption would be applied to all future claims.The precise...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor
...factual findings explicitly or implicitly made, affirming them so long as they are not clearly erroneous." John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, ¶ 10, 96 P.3d 530, 535 (App.2004) (citations ¶ 66 Equitable estoppel generally applies where (1) "`the party to ......
-
Beynon v. Trezza
...action by a party relying on such conduct, and (3) injury to the party from a repudiation of such conduct. John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, ¶ 10, 96 P.3d 530, 535 (App.2004); see also Lowe v. Pima County, 217 Ariz. 642, ¶ 33, 177 P.3d 1214, 1222 (App.2......
-
Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P. L.C. v. Petta
...judgment motion is not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment entered after a trial on the merits.” John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 208 Ariz. 532, 539, ¶ 19, 96 P.3d 530, 537 (App.2004) (citing Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Ariz.App. 424......
-
Campion v. City of Tucson
...P., or by making some other post-trial motion. Ryan v. Napier , 245 Ariz. 54, ¶ 14, 425 P.3d 230 (2018) ; John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County , 208 Ariz. 532, ¶ 19, 96 P.3d 530 (App. 2004) ; see also Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. , 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 10......
-
Court of Appeals Addresses Insurance Agent Negligence Claim; Plaintiff May Claim Emotional Damages
...Jones preserved the issue for appeal by reasserting it in a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, ¶ 19, 96 P.3d 530, 537 (App. 2004) (party seeking to preserve summary-judgment issue for appeal, “with a possible e......
-
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company
...Jones preserved the issue for appeal by reasserting it in a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, ¶ 19, 96 P.3d 530, 537 (App. 2004) (party seeking to preserve summary-judgment issue for appeal, “with a possible e......
-
Appellate Tip: Preserve “No-Duty” Arguments in Negligence Cases with Pretrial and Post-Trial Motions
...of these pretrial motions is generally not reviewable on appeal, even after entry of a final judgment. See John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, 539, ¶ 19 (App. 2004); ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Sys., 653 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 2011). A defe......
-
Appellate Tip: Preserving Arguments from Denied Motion for Summary Judgments
...motions for new trial, judgment as a matter of law, or other relief from the judgment. Sean Moore John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 532, 539, ¶ 19 (App. 2004). Therefore if you proceed to trial, make sure you take the necessary steps to preserve your argumen......
-
Private sector business records
...was allowed because it simpliied and clariied more than 9,000 invoices. John C. Lincoln Hosp. and Health Corp. v. Maricopa County , 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2004). In a private hospital’s action seeking reimbursement from the county for emergency medical treatment rendered to indigents,......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Reliance Capital Group, 582 N.Y.S.2d 720 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1992), §9.501.1 John C. Lincoln Hosp. and Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 96 P.3d 530, (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004), §22.428 John Cangelosi v. Capasso, Rockford Radiology Associates , 851 N.E.2d 954, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 76......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...was allowed because it simplified and clarified more than 9,000 invoices. John C. Lincoln Hosp. and Health Corp. v. Maricopa County , 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2004). In a private hospital’s action seeking reimbursement from the county for emergency medical treatment rendered to indigent......
-
Private sector business records
...was allowed because it simpliied and clariied more than 9,000 invoices. John C. Lincoln Hosp. and Health Corp. v. Maricopa County , 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2004). In a private hospital’s action seeking reimbursement from the county for emergency medical treatment rendered to indigents,......