Woods By and Through Woods v. Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 82022,No. 1,82022,1 |
| Citation | 890 P.2d 1367 |
| Parties | 1995 OK CIV APP 13 Jessica Marguerite WOODS, a minor child By and Through her mother and next friend, Katy WOODS, Appellant, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Appellee, and Matthew David Brewster and Thomas Flescher III, M.D., Defendants. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Niles Jackson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
D. Hays Foster, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Robert T. Luttrell, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Appellant, Jessica Marguerite Woods (Woods), through her mother Katy Woods, seeks review of the trial court's order which approved the settlement of her claims and rendered judgment against Defendant, Matthew David Brewster (Tortfeasor), for injuries Woods sustained in a car accident while a passenger in Tortfeasor's car. Tortfeasor's insurance company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurer), intervened in this action and as found by the trial court, tendered its policy limit of $20,000.00. Appellee, Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. (Hospital), rendered services to Woods for the injuries she sustained in the accident which totalled $49,629.29. The trial court's order provided Hospital's lien filed pursuant to 42 O.S.1991, § 43, was valid and took priority over Defendant's, Thomas Flescher III, M.D., physician's lien. Hospital was awarded all of the insurance proceeds, less an amount deducted for Woods' attorney fee. Woods appeals.
Tortfeasor was covered by an insurance policy with Insurer for $10,000.00 in liability and $10,000.00 in uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. As a passenger in Tortfeasor's car, Woods was entitled to proceed against the UM coverage. On appeal, Woods preserves three propositions of error for review:
1. Whether a hospital lien arising under the provisions of 42 O.S.1991, § 43 may attach to uninsured motorist proceeds;
2. Whether the hospital lien only attaches to the claim of a minor's parent; and
3. Whether Hospital abandoned its lien because of the doctrine of election of remedies.
42 O.S.1991, § 43 (emphasis added) provides:
Every hospital in the State of Oklahoma, which shall furnish emergency medical or other service to any patient injured by reason of an accident not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act, shall, if such injured party shall assert or maintain a claim against another for damages on account of such injuries, have a lien upon that part going or belonging to such patient of any recovery or sum had or collected or to be collected by such patient, or by his heirs, personal representatives or next of kin in the case of his death, whether by judgment or by settlement or compromise to the amount of the reasonable and necessary charges of such hospital for the treatment, care and maintenance of such patient in such hospital up to the date of payment of such damages; Provided, however, that this lien shall be inferior to any lien or claim of any attorney or attorneys for handling the claim on behalf of such patient, his heirs or personal representatives; provided further, that the lien herein set forth shall not be applied or considered valid against any claim for amounts due under the Workers' Compensation Act in this state.
On appeal, Woods does not contest Hospital's lien against the proceeds from the liability coverage, Woods just maintains the uninsured motorist proceeds may not be recovered.1 There is no basis for a hospital lien in absence of a statute providing for one. Vinzant v. Hillcrest Medical Center, 609 P.2d 1274 (Okla.1980). Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and the meaning clear and unmistakable, there is no room for construction and no justification exists for interpretative devices to fabricate a different meaning. Anson Corporation v. Hill, 841 P.2d 583, 585 (Okla.1992).
"The purpose of an uninsured motorist provision in an insurance contract is to protect the insured from the effects of personal injury resulting from an accident with another motorist who carries no insurance or is underinsured." Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Company, 662 P.2d 681, 683-684 (Okla.1983). Woods correctly points out that the right to recover under UM coverage is based in the insured's right in contract, rather than in tort. Bill Hodges Truck Co., Inc. v. Humphrey, 704 P.2d 94, 96 (Okla.App.1984). It is a contract by which a person may protect himself against the "vagaries of life", similar to collision, comprehensive, medical payments or personal injury protection. Id.
This Court has previously held, in an unpublished and nonprecedential decision, that the hospital lien created in 42 O.S.1991, § 43 does attach to any funds recovered by the patient from uninsured motorist coverage. Hillcrest Medical Center, Inc. v. Webber, # 57, 169 (Okla.App.1983).2 See also Dade County v. Pavon, 266 So.2d 94 (Fla. Dist. coa 1972). The reasoning in Hillcrest Medical Center, Inc. is sound. The hospital lien statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kratz v. Kratz
...withdrawn from publication. 55 OBJ 2256. There is also a recent published decision of the Court of Appeals, Woods v. Baptist Medical Center of Okl., 890 P.2d 1367 (Okl.App.1995), enforcing a hospital lien against funds recovered from uninsured motorist coverage which was based in large part......