Wayne Tp. v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., No. 02A03-9106-CV-190

Docket NºNo. 02A03-9106-CV-190
Citation590 N.E.2d 1130
Case DateApril 29, 1992
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1130

590 N.E.2d 1130
WAYNE TOWNSHIP, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF FORT WAYNE, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 02A03-9106-CV-190.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Third District.
April 29, 1992.

Page 1131

Mark E. Giaquinta, Cynthia Rockwell, Haller & Colvin, Fort Wayne, for appellant-defendant.

James A. Federoff, Thomas J. Galanis, Beckman, Lawson, Sandler, Snyder & Federoff, Fort Wayne, for appellee-plaintiff.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Appellant-defendant Wayne Township appeals a partial judgment awarding $162,034.35 to appellee-plaintiff Lutheran Hospital for hospital care and treatment Lutheran Hospital rendered to certain indigent patients for normal pregnancy care and childbirth.

The facts relevant to the appeal disclose that on January 5, 1981, Lutheran Hospital, Parkview Memorial Hospital, and St. Joseph's Hospital filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and verified action for mandate against the Department of Public Welfare and all of the Townships in Allen County, Indiana. 1 On August 9, 1983, the parties entered into stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law in which they agreed that the trustees of the townships had denied applications for poor relief assistance based on their belief that they had no obligation to pay pregnancy-related hospital expenses or that the hospitals had to first exhaust their obligation to perform charitable services under the Hill-Burton Act. The parties also agreed that the Poor Relief Act, IND.CODE Sec. 12-2-1-1 et seq., obligated the trustees to pay such expenses regardless of whether the hospitals had exhausted their financial obligations under the Hill-Burton Act, and that the Poor Relief Act obligated the trustees to investigate the circumstances of patients the hospitals had referred to them for assistance. On the same day that the parties entered into their stipulations, the trial court entered its decree for declaratory judgment which incorporated the stipulations and ordered the trustees to promptly investigate and determine the eligibility of patients for assistance. The decree also ordered the

Page 1132

trustees to re-consider the eligibility of patients whose applications they had previously denied or for whom the hospitals had provided written notice of to the trustees.

On January 28, 1986, the trial court entered an order for further relief based upon declaratory judgment. In its order, the court determined that, with certain limited exceptions, the trustees had failed to make prompt determinations of eligibility of patients who had submitted applications and patients for whom the hospitals had provided written notice. The court also determined that the trustees had been negligent in their statutory duty to provide poor relief assistance and that, with certain limited exceptions, had failed to reimburse the hospitals for services rendered. With respect to pre-1983-decree patients, the court ordered the trustees to make a determination as to each patient's eligibility within 60 days of the receipt of either a discharge summary or a certification from a physician confirming the "normalcy" of the pregnancy and delivery. The court also ruled that the trustees could not deny assistance based on their inability to ascertain eligibility due to the passage of time.

Lutheran Hospital filed a motion for partial judgment on August 19, 1987. After several hearings, the trial court entered its order for special findings of fact and partial judgment on May 31, 1991. The court found in favor of Lutheran Hospital and against Wayne Township in the amount of $99,707.56. The court then awarded Lutheran Hospital $62,326.79 in interest for a total judgment of $162,034.35. This appeal ensued.

Wayne Township raises three issues for review on appeal:

(1) whether the trial court's 1991 order was contrary to law;

(2) whether the trial court's 1991 order was beyond the scope of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction; and

(3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding interest to Lutheran Hospital.

The trial court entered its 1991 order for special findings of fact and partial judgment pursuant to Lutheran Hospital's request; therefore, this Court will not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. DeHaan v. DeHaan (1991),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Kosarko v. Padula, No. 45S03–1206–CT–310.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Diciembre 2012
    ...of the amount of the judgment award." Ind.Code § 34–51–4–5.5 The trial court relied on Wayne Twp. v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, for the same proposition as is contained in Roper.6 In Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692......
  • Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. S.E. Lab Group, Inc., No. 49A05-9310-CV-375
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Diciembre 1994
    ...interest under the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc. (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 1130, 1133-34, trans. denied; Nimet Indus. Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co. (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 779, 782; Board of Sch. Trustees v. Indiana Educ. Employ......
  • Lake County v. State ex rel. Manich, No. 45A05-9304-CV-122
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Marzo 1994
    ...See Gibson County v. State ex rel. Emmert (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 1179; Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 1130, trans. denied; Pike County v. State ex rel. Hardin (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1188. We find no error County also contends that prejudgment inter......
  • Norris Ave. Prof'l Bldg. P'ship v. Coordinated Health, LLC, No. 40A01–1408–PL–349.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Marzo 2015
    ...parties and the tribunal, the findings of fact may not be challenged upon appeal. Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). Thus, we will only look to the conclusions of law and whether the findings and conclusions support the judgment. W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Kosarko v. Padula, No. 45S03–1206–CT–310.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Diciembre 2012
    ...of the amount of the judgment award." Ind.Code § 34–51–4–5.5 The trial court relied on Wayne Twp. v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, for the same proposition as is contained in Roper.6 In Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692......
  • Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. S.E. Lab Group, Inc., No. 49A05-9310-CV-375
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Diciembre 1994
    ...interest under the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc. (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 1130, 1133-34, trans. denied; Nimet Indus. Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co. (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 779, 782; Board of Sch. Trustees v. Indiana Educ. Employ......
  • Lake County v. State ex rel. Manich, No. 45A05-9304-CV-122
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Marzo 1994
    ...See Gibson County v. State ex rel. Emmert (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 1179; Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 1130, trans. denied; Pike County v. State ex rel. Hardin (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1188. We find no error County also contends that prejudgment inter......
  • Norris Ave. Prof'l Bldg. P'ship v. Coordinated Health, LLC, No. 40A01–1408–PL–349.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Marzo 2015
    ...parties and the tribunal, the findings of fact may not be challenged upon appeal. Wayne Township v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). Thus, we will only look to the conclusions of law and whether the findings and conclusions support the judgment. W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT