State ex rel. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital v. Reed, 43274

• Decision Date: 01 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 43274,43274
• Citation: 493 P.2d 815
• Parties: STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. CENTRAL STATE GRIFFIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Plaintiff in Error, v. John M. REED, Administrator of the Estate of Roland Reed, Deceased, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 815

493 P.2d 815

STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. CENTRAL STATE GRIFFIN MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL, Plaintiff in Error, v. John M. REED, Administrator of the Estate of Roland Reed, Deceased, Defendant in Error.

No. 43274.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 1, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Mental Health Code does not impose liability on a husband, wife, parent, or child for expenses of hospital care and treatment of a person who has been admitted as a patient in a state institution, but does authorize a suit against them if they are legally responsible for the patient under other provisions of our statutes or are otherwise contractually obligated.

2. Under Title 32 O.S. 10 a husband's estate may be liable for expenses of hospital care and treatment of his mentally ill wife who during his lifetime was admitted to a state institution as a patient.

3. Bar of filing claim subsequent to running of statutory time for notice to creditors in claim against estate applies to state and subdivisions thereof.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Jack R. Parr, Judge.

Action in contract against estate of husband of deceased patient of State Hospital. Trial Court sustained demurrer to petition holding action barred by statute of nonclaims. State Hospital appeals. Affirmed.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., W. Howard O'Bryan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Curtis P. Harris, Dist. Atty. of Oklahoma County, for plaintiff in error.

Eugene P. Ledbetter, Jr., Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

HODGES, Justice.

This appeal poses two issues for our determination:

(1) May a husband's estate be liable for expenses of hospital care and treatment of his mentally ill wife who during his lifetime was admitted to a state institution as a patient.

(2) Does the notice to creditors as provided in 58 O.S.1961, 333 run against the State of Oklahoma?

Upon consideration of the following facts and law we answer both questions affirmatively.

Leah Hazel Reed was a resident patient in the Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital from August 1, 1953 until her death on May 7, 1965. Her husband, Roland Reed died intestate on December 29, 1964. Probate proceedings were commenced and on January 19, 1965, the administrator of his estate gave Notice to Creditors to present their claims within four months or be forever barred as provided in 58 O.S.1961, 333.

Approximately three years after the Notice to Creditors had expired, Central State Memorial Hospital filed a claim on the estate of Mr. Reed for hospital care and treatment of his wife as a resident patient for approximately twelve years in the amount of $10,432.20. The claim was disallowed, and this action was commenced. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's petition and Central State Hospital appeals.

Under our Mental Health Law in Title 43A, Sections 111 through 118 provide for the expenses of care and treatment of patients and pupils at state institutions:

Section 111 provides:

'A patient or pupil at an institution within the department is liable for his care and treatment. This claim of the State for such care and treatment shall constitute a valid indebtedness against any such patient or pupil and his estate and shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. At the death of the patient or pupil this claim shall be allowed and paid as other lawful claims against the estate. Persons making application for admission of a pupil under Section 57 of this Act are also liable for the pupil's care and treatment, provided that said persons are legally obligated to support said pupil. Provided, further that no admission or detention of a patient in a state hospital or a pupil in school shall be limited or conditioned in any manner by the financial status or ability to pay of a patient or pupil, his estate, or any relative.'

Section 115 provides in part:

'If a guardian has been appointed for the estate of a patient in an institution within this department, the court shall order the guardian to pay the amount of the State's claim for care and treatment as determined by Sections 112 and 113 of this Title. If no guardian has been appointed, the claim of the State against a patient for his care and treatment may be collected by suit or other proceedings against the patient brought in the name of the State by the County Attorney of the County from which said patient was sent or any county in which the patient may have property. The claim of the State against a husband, wife, the parents and the children of any patient for his care and treatment may be collected by suit or other proceedings in the name of the State against the husband, the wife, a parent, a child, or any two or more of them.' * * *.

State Hospital contends that Section 115, supra, establishes liability of a husband or his estate for hospital care and treatment of his wife. The defendant administrator, on the other hand, contends that Section 115 does not impose liability upon the husband or the others therein enumerated, but only authorizes the collection of a claim by suit against the husband and others. Administrator argues that liability is only imposed upon the patient or his estate under Section 111, except for pupils admitted to a state institution under Section 57.

We find merit in the contentions of the administrator. Section 115, which is entitled 'Payment by guardian--Collection by legal proceeding', does not create an indebtedness against a husband, wife, parents or children of a patient. It merely authorizes a suit by the State against those enumerated who are legally responsible for the patient under other provisions of our statutes or are otherwise contractually obligated which will be hereinafter discussed. Section 111, which is entitled, 'Liability of patient and estate for expense', specifically imposes a liability of indebtedness against a patient or his estate and those persons making application for admission of a pupil under Section 57. (This section authorizes the admission of mentally retarded persons, as distinguished from persons mentally ill). It would appear that if the legislature intended to make a husband, wife, parent or child liable for the expenses of a mentally ill person under our mental health code, they could have easily done so as was done in Section 111 imposing liability on a patient or his estate and for those persons responsible for admissions of pupils under Section 57.

Our attention is next directed to the duty or responsibility of a husband to furnish 'necessaries' to his wife. Title 32 O.S. 10 provides:

'If the husband neglect to make adequate provision for the support of his wife, except in the cases mentioned in the next section, any other person may, in good faith, supply her with articles necessary for her support and recover the reasonable value thereof from the husband.'

In Trahern v. Mulkey, 157 Okl. 297, 11 P.2d 942, we held that a husband, under this section and by virtue of the marriage relation, is required to furnish medical attention to his sick wife. In Schiefer v. Wilson, 171 Okl. 119, 42 P.2d 263, a wife was determined mentally ill and placed in a state hospital. Later she was removed from the state institution by the wife's sister and placed in a private sanatorium. There we upheld a jury verdict in...