Sioux Valley Hosp. Ass'n v. Yankton County, 15979

• Decision Date: 25 April 1988
• Docket Number: No. 15979,15979
• Citation: 424 N.W.2d 379
• Parties: SIOUX VALLEY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a charitable corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YANKTON COUNTY, South Dakota, (Mary Ann Sivertson), Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 379

424 N.W.2d 379

SIOUX VALLEY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a charitable corporation Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YANKTON COUNTY, South Dakota, (Mary Ann Sivertson) Defendant and Appellee.

No. 15979.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs April 25, 1988.

Decided June 8, 1988.

Thomas M. Frankman of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Craig A. Kennedy, Yankton County State's Atty., Yankton, for defendant and appellee.

Robert R. Nelson and John T. Porter of Bierle & Porter, Yankton, for South Dakota Hosp. Ass'n, amicus curiae.

HENDERSON, Justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY/ISSUES

Plaintiff Sioux Valley Hospital Association (Hospital) initiated an action to recover from defendant, Yankton County (County), payment for emergency hospitalization services rendered to an alleged indigent, Mary Ann Sivertson. A motion for summary judgment in favor of County was granted below, on the grounds that a County relief application form containing information required by statute was not filed with the County Auditor within fifteen days of admission. Hospital appeals, contending trial court error as follows:

1) The Hospital is not required to file such an application within fifteen days of the patient's emergency admittance;

2) SDCL 28-13-34 only requires the Hospital to provide limited specified information within the statutory time period;

3) The Hospital may not be denied payment for services rendered the indigent for failure to provide the County with financial information when the alleged indigent refuses to give that information; and

4) The County application form requires more information than the legislature contemplated regarding notice of emergency treatment.

Our decision hinges on statutory interpretation. We hold the pertinent statutes do not authorize the County to mandate filing of an application containing detailed financial data from the patient within fifteen days of admission. Accordingly, we reverse, treating Issues I, II, and IV together but not reaching Issue III.

FACTS

On December 14, 1986, Mary Ann Sivertson was admitted to the Hospital for emergency treatment. She was discharged on December 17, 1986. The Hospital sent a form (designed by the Hospital, not the County) to the County Auditor, who filed the form on December 19, 1986. This form, entitled "Notice of Admission and Application of Eligibility for Assistance," listed: (1) the attending physician; (2) the nature of the illness (heart disease); (3) anticipated services required; (4) the location where services were provided (Coronary Care Unit); and (5) estimated cost ($6,000) of the services given.

The County, in turn, then sent Hospital a form titled "Application for General Relief." This form required an applicant (apparently the patient) to provide detailed information regarding personal and financial matters, including all forms of income, execution of "any undelivered or unrecorded deeds to property," employment history, military service and type of discharge, etc. The application was a general form used for requests for relief regarding rent, food, medical assistance, utility bills, and "other" forms of assistance.

The Hospital staff contacted Sivertson by telephone in an attempt to get the necessary information, but Sivertson refused to cooperate. The County form was not filed within fifteen days, and the County refused to reimburse the Hospital for the services provided, as County argued that filing its application form within fifteen days of a patient's emergency admission was required by law.

The circuit court agreed with the County's interpretation of the statutes.

DECISION

This case is resolved by statutory interpretation. Relevant statutes are:

SDCL 28-13-33:

County liability for emergency hospitalization of indigent persons at approved rates--Remedies for recovery of expense by county. Subject to the provisions of Secs. 28-13-28 to 28-13-32, inclusive, and except as hereinafter expressly provided, whenever hospitalization for an indigent person has been furnished by a hospital in any emergency case, the county where the indigent person has established residency shall be liable to the hospital as herein provided, and shall have the same remedies for the recovery of such expense as are provided by statute for the recovery of money expended for the relief and support of poor and indigent persons. (Emphasis added.)

SDCL 28-13-34:

Notice to county after emergency hospitalization of indigent person. In any case where emergency hospitalization to an indigent person is furnished, there shall be no liability on any county for the hospitalization unless within fifteen days from admittance of the indigent person, notice of hospitalization bearing the name of the attending physician and the information required to be contained in the application referred to in Sec. 28-13-32.1 is filed with the auditor of the county. (Emphasis added.)

SDCL 28-13-32.1:

Nonemergency hospitalization assistance--Application rendered--Time for filing--Approval, rejection or modification. In order for a person to be entitled to poor relief assistance in nonemergency cases, as defined in Sec. 28-13-27, he must make or there must be made, on his behalf, an application to the board of county commissioners.... The board of county commissioners may approve, reject or modify any application for poor relief. (Emphasis added.)

SDCL 28-13-32.2:

Nonemergency hospitalization assistance--Contents of application. The application required in Sec. 28-13-32.1 shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Nature and degree of severity of the illness (2) Anticipated diagnostic or therapeutic...