State v. Patricia II

• Decision Date: 09 February 2006
• Citation: 844 N.E.2d 743,6 N.Y.3d 160
• Parties: STATE of New York, Respondent, v. PATRICIA II., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

844 N.E.2d 743

6 N.Y.3d 160

STATE of New York, Respondent, v. PATRICIA II., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

February 9, 2006.

Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Third Judicial Department, Albany (Sheila E. Shea of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Michelle Arnowitz, Julie S. Mereson, Caitlin J. Halligan and Daniel Smirlock of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CIPARICK, J.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a former psychiatric patient's ability to pay the costs of her care and treatment incurred at a state-operated psychiatric facility is a condition precedent to the State's right to maintain an action to recover those costs under article 43 of the Mental Hygiene Law. We hold that it is not.

Defendant was a patient at the state-operated South Beach Psychiatric Center from January 2, 1997 through March 11, 1997. Her care and treatment during this period were primarily covered by Medicare, but a balance of $12,160 remained unpaid. After defendant's release, the State discovered that, along with guaranteed income sources from Social Security and a private pension, defendant maintained an individual retirement account (IRA) with Emigrant Savings Bank valued in excess of $18,000 as of July 1, 2001. On May 9, 2002, the State commenced this Mental Hygiene Law article 43 action to recover the balance due for the cost of defendant's care and treatment.

Defendant, through her guardian ad litem, admitted that she owed the money claimed but moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, on the ground that the complaint did not allege that defendant had the ability to pay. The State cross-moved for summary judgment asserting that Mental Hygiene Law article 43 does not require the ability to pay as a condition precedent to an action to recover the cost of services rendered. Additionally, the State maintained that the defendant was not indigent and had the ability to pay.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, reasoning that although Mental Hygiene Law article 43 does not expressly require ability to pay, state courts have, nonetheless, required the State to prove ability to pay as a condition precedent to liability. Additionally, Supreme Court reasoned that since an IRA account is exempt from execution under CPLR 5205(c), it cannot be deemed to satisfy the condition precedent. The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to the State, holding that the clear and unequivocal language of article 43 does not condition an action to recover costs on a patient's ability to pay. We granted defendant leave to appeal and now affirm.

"It is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature" (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 205, 208, 391 N.Y.S.2d 544, 359 N.E.2d 1338 [1976]). The starting point is always to look to the language itself and "[w]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning" (Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 91, 735 N.Y.S.2d 873, 761 N.E.2d 565 [2001]).

The plain language of article 43 provides that an indigent patient need not pay for services at the time they are rendered, but remains liable for them (see Mental Hygiene Law § 43.01[a]; § 43.03[a]). The State may reduce or waive fees in cases of inability to pay, but acceptance of less than the full fee or the waiver of a fee or any part thereof shall not be construed to release a patient from liability for the entire cost of the care and treatment (see Mental Hygiene Law § 43.03[b]). Also, in order to facilitate recovery, the State may file a lien to recover amounts due (see Mental Hygiene Law § 43.07[b]). Furthermore, it is uncontested that article 43 grants the State the authority to recover the cost of defendant's care and treatment through an action commenced within six years from when the fees become due (see Mental Hygiene Law § 43.07[c]).

Defendant maintains that article 43's legislative history and legislative intent require a showing of ability to pay. Before the Mental Hygiene Law was recodified in 1972, it differentiated between the requirements for contribution for services currently being rendered and recovery for services rendered. The pre-1972 Mental Hygiene Law allowed the State to seek contribution from certain designated third parties if they had "sufficient ability" to pay (see L. 1966, ch. 256, § 54; former Mental Hygiene Law § 24[2]). Furthermore, the pre-1972 Mental Hygiene Law allowed the State to recover the cost of services rendered only from those former patients who subsequently acquired assets (see L. 1966, ch. 256, § 54; former Mental Hygiene Law § 24[6]). Defendant asserts that since the pre-1972 Mental Hygiene Law conditioned recovery for services rendered on the existence of a patient's assets, the present Mental Hygiene Law must be likewise interpreted to require the patient's ability to pay as a condition precedent to liability.

Defendant supports this...