Winship v. Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. S-07-0246.,S-07-0246. |
| Citation | 185 P.3d 1252,2008 WY 68 |
| Parties | Stephen R. WINSHIP, Appellant (Defendant), v. GEM CITY BONE & JOINT, P.C., Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellee: C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] This case presents the issue of whether an attorney, who distributes the proceeds of a personal injury action without paying a medical provider's bills after his client executed, with the attorney's knowledge, an assignment of the proceeds to the provider, is liable to the medical provider for the amount of those bills. We conclude that the attorney is responsible to the medical provider for failing to honor his client's assignment and, consequently, affirm.
[¶ 2] Attorney Stephen Winship presents the following issue on appeal:
Whether the district court erred in ruling that, as a matter of law, the terms of the Authorization to Release Medical Records and Consent to Lien obligated Appellant to directly pay Appellee the amount of outstanding medical charges from his client's settlement proceeds.
Although worded differently, Gem City Bone and Joint, P.C.'s (Gem City) statement of the issue is similar.
[¶ 3] Brand Jackman retained Mr. Winship to represent him in a personal injury action against Wyoming Technical Institute (WTI). Gem City provided treatment for his injuries, and Mr. Winship requested Mr. Jackman's medical records. Gem City provided a release form to Mr. Winship which stated in relevant part:
I, the undersigned, hereby authorize Stephen R. Winship, my attorney (or any attorney/employee of said law firm), to receive and copy any and all of my medical, hospital, mental, and psychological records in your possession, including a statement of all bills, paid or unpaid. I waive any privilege to my attorneys. Please do not release any information to insurance adjusters or other unauthorized individuals. I further grant to Gem City Bone and Joint, P.C. a lien upon any and all claims of liability or indemnity for damages accruing to me for all outstanding charges for treatment and care on account of injuries giving rise to such claims and which necessitated such services, and I hereby authorize my attorney to pay, directly to Gem City Bone and Joint, P.C., all outstanding medical bills from any and all monies obligated to be paid to me by reason of any claims of liability or indemnity for damages accruing to me on account of injuries giving rise to such claims and which necessitated such services.
Mr. Winship signed the document in the space labeled: "ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE" and forwarded it to Mr. Jackman. Mr. Jackman did not send the document back to Mr. Winship, but signed it on January 27, 2000, and sent it directly to Gem City. Gem City then sent the medical records to Mr. Winship. In addition, Gem City continued to treat Mr. Jackman, resulting in increased medical bills.
[¶ 4] Jeremy Michaels, another attorney, became involved in the personal injury litigation representing Mr. Jackman. Mr. Michaels negotiated a settlement of Mr. Jackman's claims with WTI and prepared a statement of distribution of the proceeds of the settlement. The statement, which was signed by Mr. Jackman on October 28, 2002, indicated that the proceeds were distributed to Mr. Jackman, another member of his family and his attorneys. The statement also stated: "CLIENT IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL MEDICAL BILLS/LIENS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN." Mr. Jackman apparently did not pay Gem City.
[¶ 5] Gem City filed an action against Mr. Winship seeking payment of Mr. Jackman's medical bills. Gem City included claims for breach of contract, breach of obligation imposed by law, and quantum meruit. Mr. Winship filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 11, 2006, the district court issued a decision letter granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Winship on Gem City's first two claims. The court denied Mr. Winship's summary judgment motion as to the quantum meruit claim.1
[¶ 6] Mr. Winship and Gem City filed cross motions for summary judgment on the remaining issues. The district court held a hearing on the motions and issued a decision letter on May 23, 2007. It granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Winship on the quantum meruit claim. The district court, however, revisited its earlier summary judgment rulings:
[T]his Court previously granted summary judgment as to Gem City's breach of contract and breach of obligation imposed by law claims. In conducting additional research for purposes of the currently pending motions for summary judgment, this Court became aware of a substantial body of case law that addresses the obligation of an attorney to comply with an assignment or lien executed by an attorney's client, particularly when that attorney knows of or participated in the assignment.
The district court stated, "the majority of courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that, when an attorney participates in or knows of an assignment of or lien against litigation proceeds, then the attorney is obligated to honor that assignment by paying the proceeds directly to the assignee." The court then ruled: "This [c]ourt is compelled to follow the persuasive path set by the majority of sister jurisdictions that have addressed the issue in concluding that, as a matter of law, Winship is liable to Gem City for the amount of the assignment."
[¶ 7] Mr. Winship filed a motion requesting an opportunity to brief the issue raised by the district court in its decision letter, and the district court granted it. However, after reviewing the parties' submissions, the district court issued an order affirming its decision letter of May 23, 2007, and entered a judgment in favor of Gem City in the amount of the outstanding medical bills. This appeal followed.
[¶ 8] Summary judgment motions are governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c):
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
We review a district court's summary judgment rulings de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. The facts are reviewed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Sunshine Custom Paints & Body, Inc. v. South Douglas Highway Water & Sewer Dist., 2007 WY 206, ¶ 8, 173 P.3d 398, 401 (Wyo.2007); Cook v. Shoshone First Bank, 2006 WY 13, ¶ 11, 126 P.3d 886, 889 (Wyo.2006).
[¶ 9] Mr. Winship maintains that the district court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that he was responsible for failing to pay Gem City from the proceeds of Mr. Jackman's personal injury action. He argues, first, that he did not enter into a direct contractual obligation with Gem City to pay the charges out of the proceeds of the settlement. Mr. Winship asserts the district court properly interpreted the release in its September 11, 2006, decision letter, where it stated:
The problem with Gem City's cause of action for breach of contract is that there was no "contract" between Winship and Gem City; rather, the contract is between Jackman and Gem City. The Release is written such that Jackman grants Gem City a lien and Jackman authorizes (but does not direct or require) his attorney to pay Gem City directly. Although Winship signed the Release, there is no language included therein requiring him to honor Jackman's agreement or even requiring him to pay Gem City directly.
Looking at the plain language of the Release and focusing on a determination of the parties' intent, this [c]ourt cannot interpret the Release as requiring Winship to pay Jackman's medical obligations.
(emphasis in original; footnote and citation omitted). However, when the district court revisited the issue in its second decision letter, it focused on the law of assignments rather than whether, under the plain language of the release, Mr. Winship entered into a direct contractual obligation with Gem City.
[¶ 10] "An `assignment' is a transfer of property or some other right from one person (the `assignor') to another (the `assignee'), which confers a complete and present right in the subject matter to the assignee." 6 Am.Jur.2d Assignments § 1 (2007) (footnotes omitted). See also, Central Wyo. Med. Lab., LLC v. Med. Testing Lab., Inc., 2002 WY 47, ¶ 21, 43 P.3d 121, 129 (Wyo.2002). It is not difficult to effectuate an assignment of a right or claim.
Any language, however informal, that indicates the intention of the owner of a claim or chose in action to transfer it, is sufficient to vest the property in the assignee; in determining whether an assignment has occurred, the courts look to substance, rather than the form.... An assignment may be in the form of an agreement or order or any other instrument that the parties may see fit to use for that purpose.
6 Am.Jur.2d Assignments § 114 (2007). See also, 6A C.J.S. Assignments § 58 (2007).
[¶ 11] Assignments are contracts and, consequently, are interpreted in accordance with our typical rules of contract construction. Central Wyo. Med. Lab., ¶ 21, 43 P.3d at 129. We interpret an unambiguous contract as a matter of law and in accordance with the ordinary and usual meaning of its terms. See, Carlson v. Flocchini Invs., 2005 WY 19, ¶ 15, 106 P.3d 847, 854 (Wyo.2005).
[¶ 12] We agree with Mr. Winship that the plain language of the release does not, by itself, create a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinic v. De Smet Ins. Co. Of South Dakota
...of a claim does not give the assignee control of the case and there is no reason it should not be valid.”); Winship v. Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C., 185 P.3d 1252, 1257 (Wyo.2008) (upholding assignment on alternative grounds, including that patient “assigned the proceeds of his claim rather ......
-
Accident & Injury Med. Specialists, P.C. v. Mintz
...signed by attorney is “unambiguous contract creating an assignment that is enforceable under contract law”); Winship v. Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C., 185 P.3d 1252, 1258 (Wyo.2008) (medical provider assigned claim to settlement proceeds may collect funds from attorney who disbursed funds to ......
-
State ex rel. Arnold v. Ommen
...summary judgment rulings de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. Winship v. Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C., 2008 WY 68, ¶ 8, 185 P.3d 1252, 1254 (Wyo.2008). The facts are reviewed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the ......