190 Conn. App. 63
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Stamford Hospital sued Chaim Schwartz and Rena Gelb under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-37(b) to collect ~$8,076 remaining for medical services rendered to their minor child (after insurance payments).
- Defendants (self-represented) denied key allegations (including parentage) and pleaded 14 special defenses, including accord and satisfaction.
- Case tried to an attorney trial referee who found the hospital’s evidence credible, the medical care necessary, defendants largely untruthful, and that defendants failed to establish accord and satisfaction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-311.
- Trial court adopted the referee’s findings, entered judgment for the hospital, reserved attorney’s fees, then found several defenses pleaded and pursued in bad faith and awarded the plaintiff $34,082.20 in attorney’s fees.
- Defendants appealed raising 23 claims; the Appellate Court affirmed, concluding findings were supported by the record and the award of fees was proper given bad faith litigation conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for child’s hospital bill under § 46b-37(b) | Hospital: parents jointly liable for necessary, reasonable medical services for minor child | Defendants: denied parentage and disputed necessity/amount | Held: Parents were liable; evidence supported necessity and amount; parentage denial not credible |
| Accord and satisfaction (UCC § 42a-3-311) | Hospital: defendants failed to satisfy statutory requirements (notice, address, 90-day rule, good faith) | Defendants: $112.48 tendered with letter stated payment in full — constituted accord and satisfaction | Held: Not established — payment sent to payment lockbox (wrong address for correspondence), 90-day timing and good faith deficiencies; defense rejected |
| Validity / unconscionability of signed authorization | Hospital: authorization and posted pricemaster lawful and not unconscionable; rates publicly available | Defendants: authorization was an adhesion contract/unconscionable and disclosure inadequate | Held: No basis to find substantive unconscionability; pricemaster public and no evidence hospital overcharged |
| Award of attorney’s fees based on bad faith (Maris test) | Hospital: defendants’ denials/defenses were entirely without color and pursued to delay/avoid payment; fees justified | Defendants: contest amount, proportionality, and basis to charge spouse who didn’t sign authorization | Held: Court found defenses without color and litigated in bad faith (denial of parentage, deceitful tactics); fees awarded in full against both defendants as reasonable and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of Fountain, 267 Conn. 351 (2004) (parental liability and implied-in-law contract for child’s medical care)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (bad-faith exception to American rule: claims must be entirely without color and brought for improper purposes)
- Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231 (1992) (definition of bad faith as absence of good faith; dishonest purpose required)
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (1997) (statutory fee-limitation statutes do not necessarily displace common-law awards for independent wrongs)
- De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424 (2004) (bad faith involves design to mislead or deceive; more than negligence)
- Wildwood Associates, Ltd. v. Esposito, 211 Conn. 36 (1989) (clear evidence standard discussed for sanctions and vexatious litigation)