Treasurer and Receiver-General v. Cunniff, RECEIVER-GENERAL

• Decision Date: 07 April 1970
• Docket Number: RECEIVER-GENERAL
• Citation: 357 Mass. 206,257 N.E.2d 459
• Parties: TREASURER ANDv. Robert E. CUNNIFF.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 459

257 N.E.2d 459

357 Mass. 206

TREASURER AND RECEIVER-GENERAL v. Robert E. CUNNIFF.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Feb. 4, 1970.

Decided April 7, 1970.

Joseph E. Levine, Boston, for defendant.

Samuel W. Gaffer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

REARDON, Justice.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant pursuant to G.L. c. 123, § 96, to recover from him for the support of his wife, Anna B. Cunniff, while she was a patient at the Medfield State Hospital during the period of March 1, 1946, through December 31, 1965.

A judge of the Superior Court sitting without jury heard the case and found for the plaintiff in the sum of $18,876.64, plus interest from the date of the writ in the sum of $2,280.84. He ruled on thirteen requests for rulings filed by the defendant, granting the first to fourth inclusive and denying the rest, and reported the case to this court for the determination of three questions: 1. Was the admission of the affidavit of Theodore F. Lindberg, M.D., Superintendent of the Medfield State Hospital, proper? 2. Was the denial of the defendant's requests 5 through 13, inclusive, proper? (In argument before this court the defendant waived his rights to requests 9, 10 and 12.) 3. Was his finding for the plaintiff in the sums above stated warranted?

1. The affidavit of Dr. Lindberg stated that Anna B. Cunniff was a patient at the Medfield State Hospital and a public charge of the Commonwealth during her hospitalization; that Robert E. Cunniff, the defendant, is the husband of Anna B. Cunniff; and that the determination of the price of the support of the patient was in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 123, § 96, which amount was unpaid. ¹ Under G.L. c. 123, § 96, 'the sworn statement of a person that he is the superintendent of * * * (a state hospital) and that a certain person has been an inmate of the * * * (hospital) during a certain period of time, or that the price of the support of a certain inmate has been determined at a certain sum by the department (of mental health), shall be prima facie evidence of said facts.' Dr. Lindberg's affidavit had this effect. A possible distinction between the words 'inmate' and 'patient' has been argued to us by the defendant as bearing on the outcome of this cause. However, the terms are used interchangeably and synonymously in c. 123. See §§ 86, 88, 88A, 94, 95, 98. The defendant's contention is not tenable. The cost of support of the patient during a hospital stay was set forth in the affidavit which states that it was computed in accordance with G.L. c. 123, § 96. The defendant has shown nothing to the contrary. The affidavit was probative as to all facts stated in it. See Ryan v. DiPaolo, 313 Mass. 492, 494, 47 N.E.2d 941; Pochi v. Brett, 319 Mass. 197, 203--204, 65 N.E.2d 195; Nugent v. Popular Mkts. Inc., 353 Mass. 45, 47, 228 N.E.2d 91. The judge rightly overruled the defendant's objections to the introduction of the affidavit and was also correct in denying the defendant's requests 5 through 7 which dealt with it.

2. The responding to the plaintiff's notice to admit or deny facts, the defendant gave his residence as 393 Brookline Street, Newton, and stated that he was the owner of land and buildings at that address and that the property was assessed for tax purposes by the city of Newton at $25,000. He further admitted that ...