*1
57 5
subrogated
interest
contribute
light contingent agreements, fee agreement and his at- between Walker Rehearing Dec. Denied case, to under- torney in is difficult would be legislative purpose stand what with this
behind enactment of statute
result. logical to read statute
It far more employer that an share requiring attorney when
employee’s fees benefitted from the attor-
employer has
ney’s efforts. this case the Industrial concerning
Commission heard the evidence surety
the efforts which both the and the
employee’s attorney put negotiat- forth in
ing against their party, claims the third
concluded: case,
“In this it is clear employer surety did not retain claimant’s at-
torney represent safeguard them or to respect
their interests to the third
party attorney claim which claimant’s pursuing eventually which was
settled. The workmen’s compensation’s
surety able subrogated to recover its directly
interest from party’s the third necessity company
insurance without the obtaining attorney.” appeal
On from orders the Industrial
Commission, this Court is limited to a re- Const, questions
view law. Idaho art.
§5, Accordingly, findings the factual up-
the Industrial Commission should be
held. *2 requirements 31-3404. The suggested
letter that additional data be concerning the supplied treatment involved and costs thereof. the dates The letter with the statement “we concluded can do *3 that no formal written nothing consider letter, application has filed.” ... Carpenter to addressed Elva was application— specified residence Street, Hansen, Idaho —was Wiseman A letter sent returned undelivered. second Webb, Lloyd Falls, 1, J. Twin Carpenter, for defend- to Clarence and Elva Route ants-appellants. Idaho, returned Kimberly, was also unde- attorney livered. This was from letter Phillip S. Oberrecht and M. Chris- Glenna Lloyd Webb, informing Carpenters J. Moffatt, Thomas, (argued), tensen Bar- County that the had Commissioners direct- Blanton, Boise, Chartered, plain- rett & ed incomplete him to inform them that the tiffs-respondents. application rejected. para- was A second law, graph you added: “Under BISTLINE, Justice. right hearing to before the Board of Coun- Carpenter hospitalized Elva was at St. ty If Commissioners to review this denial. Alphonsus Hospital in Boise with a termi- you please hearing, wish a me advise either 21, April nal illness on 1980. Upon her County writing Commissioners 4, 1980, on May death hospital a total bill within days the next 20 can so that we $10,614.09 was appropriate procedures.” schedule A husband, to her surviving Carpen- Clarence rejection third Carpen- letter was sent to Carpenter ter. While Mrs. was in the hos- 12, 199, ter at Gooding, Route No. Box pital, using a county-printed Idaho, ultimately letter was deliv- form which he obtained from a sec- ered. retary, partially completed an “Application letter, County delivery Prior to the of the third Assistance.” would testify 8, later Commissioners received a let- 1980, that on or certified May about ter Hospital, from counsel for the personally he dated delivered the application, 19, 1980, August requesting redetermina- signed to, which was neither nor sworn to hearing.1 tion Leonard, Enclosed with the letter was Merle then Chairman of the an itemized statement for Commissioners; Board of the services that he hearing duly had been A signed had rendered. it because he knew his scheduled for 1980. signature November had to be “notarized” some- one; that Mr. Leonard ap- stated hearing At taking plication right.” Tr., was “all pp. 12. any testimony, stipu- three exhibits were Mr. Leonard would testify later he did evidence; lated into these ap- included the suggesting not recall ever to Mr. plication, records of services right was all even and charges, and a bankruptcy court notice though signed, just it was not but that he which declared that Mr. application. Tr., p. took the 32. filed petition bankruptcy July By May letter of the Commis- 1980. There colloquy ensued a between Mr. Carpenter sioners advised counsel independent plication incomplete representing and did not meet counsel the Commissioners. provides part board, "[i]f cial review of the decision of the denied, applicant may request substantially the manner in the admin- act, procedures before the board of chapter commis- istrative title applicant judi- sioners. The shall be entitled Idaho Code.” information, why although requested by the
When asked the Commissioners initial- ly Carpenter application, form, county’s appears compliance denied the counsel inbe “I County responded: suppose the with all of the various answer, counsel, has your question to be 31-3504.3 simply felt we lacked because we informa- infra, application for As is discussed act. ... denial [T]he certification medical status merely getting caught avoid in a of the Board of made the clerk letting sit without trap of Commissioners, in- and not in the first action____” (I.C. Tr., p. pro- has the stance the Board. The clerk county commis- the board of vides “[i]f investigate claim of duty further fails to act sioners investigated, indigency, it to or cause sixty days receipt within from report findings and thereafter notify applicant application, it shall said *4 deny approve or the Board—who will then give to writing, in or its failure notice application. application pre- the Where time, be application the shall within said treatment, hospital medical initial- cedes or approved____”) deemed clerk, question and ly before the from the Commissioners The first letter Board, is of the asserted determination to suggests that the information emergency per- status. situations appears referring counsel claim of claiming or on whose behalf son concerning the treatment received data obligated to indigency is made is dates and cost there- Mrs. for determina- application make the status form, how- county’s application The of.2 later, only leaving presumably for tion — ever, place provided no for the insertion services, validity of the termination cap- The form utilized is such information. be monetary claim which will submitted tioned FOR COUNTY APPLICATION action. to the Commissioners their MEDICAL INDIGENT ASSISTANCE. a required timely legislature has is so Paragraph of the form structured to medical indi- plication for certification as in emergency form can be used that status, required but has not gency Basically it non-emergency situations. and alacrity regarding the submission same applicant is is without a statement that the instance, pro- claims. For average monthly income assets or without making claims for the “Hospitals vides that reasonably be or she could from which he per- medically indigent hospitalization of necessary hospitalization expected shall make all reasonable efforts sons Paragraph provides a financial costs. so in- liability the account determine to be filled out. Mr. statement or oth- any available insurance curred from so, including therein with his statement did submitting bill er sources ... his wife “is Monthly Expenses of Total that payment.” Boise, had presently intensive care pay- bill “submitted 3508 refers to a Drs. Also surgery extensive several —with 31-3405, Idaho pursuant to section yet ment 3 weeks in intensive care—will estimate merely provides Code,” grafts skin This be considerable done.” forty-five may time within stipulated hearing be made at the services It was of November person copy following days that Exhibit 3 was a true the admission of said Alphonsus Hospital, person furnishing St. records of care. If a hospital said charges represented by the exhibit cus- were the medically indigent subsequent to ad- becomes charges particu- tomary for the receiving subsequent hospital or to a mission rendered, ren- lar treatment hospital, application treatment Hospi- and the were treatment dered behalf, shall be made within person, or on his regular charges charges for bona were tal’s (30) days thirty of the time the becomes emergency treatment. fide chargeable county medically indigent. practicable as soon as shall be notified counties reads: 3. Section 31-3504 hospital’s obtaining information dis- application for on “An behalf of closing patient medically indigent.” is receiving emergency indigent person hospitalization that “the bill for such time the for assistance was filed, expenditure presented employed by shall he the board a farmer who commissioners, paid plus housing. him duly a month Car- $750 verified un- oath,” penter quit job further testified that he specifying der without who has the obligation daughter present because his did not want him the bill or at what living help alone and his son-in-lawneeded time. hearing his At time of on farm. statutory scheme as written daughter’s living his haphazardly and scattered in the various family working for his son-in-law for confusing. thing sections is At one least plus room board some occasional however, clear and that is there no spending money. Carpenter testified that requirement in indigent applicant “possible” employment it was as a application. clude bill with his farm would to him if laborer be available sense; This makes if the is for return he wanted to sort work. assistance, non-emergency will there hearing He also at the he testified filed, bill at the time the virtually outstanding no assets and total the same situation will also occur some $25,797.71, including indebtedness of cases which the is for emer $10,614.09. bill from the At gency medical benefits of the time the Commissioners were made filing on application. restrictions of an July aware of the fact that or about circumstances, Under the it appears that *5 1980, Carpenter voluntary peti- had filed a clearly inappropriate county would be bankruptcy hospital’s and that the deny commissioners to an among claim was those inventoried in the indigency medical assistance on the sole bankruptcy petition. ground regarding that information the Upon completion hearing, the mat- submitted, had medical bill not been with by ter was taken under advisement the notifying out ever indigent applicant an January Commissioners. On the that he or she expected such Commissioners reaffirmed their earlier re- information. jection Carpenter of claim the the on basis We application clearly hold that the com- (1) filing properly of: The lack of of a § plied requirements with the claim; (2) The lack notice executed of of out, pointed 3504. As the lower court I.C. emergency medical treatment as excepts provisions from its medi- § 31-3504;4 (3) required by I.C. The lack indigency petitions cal filed under (4) applicant’s indigency; of medical The § 31-3504, specifically deals with the any recognizable of claim for lack assist- medically indigent receiving emergency ance, in bankruptcy since he had filed and and, agree. Hence, services. We there was no claim; (5) hospital’s inventoried requirement of Mr. that he sub- unavailability county of medical The indi- petition, scribe and swear ato which he gency to a bankruptcy benefits trustee. hospitalized behalf of submitted on respondents appealed The from the Com- wife. missioners’ decision to the district court.5 21, 1980, hearing court,
At the on November The district after a and testified that at the time the transcript record of hear- question ing debt was incurred at the November reversed emergency augmented, In cases in which medical have not asked to have the record provided, grounds 31-3504 states that apparently believing that the chargeable "[t]he counties shall sufficiently decision set forth in the record. are practicable hospi- notified as soon agree augmentation We that record obtaining disclosing pa- tal’s information that a necessary, the district court’s memorandum medically indigent.” tient is apprise being opinion sufficient to this Court of grounds for the Commissioners’ decision. appeal copy 5. The record does not include a findings. parties Commissioners’ is to obtain the Commissioners. The court lant to obtain reimbursement decision of indi- to the found that the certificate of need and establish by gent, (1) filed him was commissioners that it was an procedure, situation, initiate the claim sufficient to emergency the medi- Hospi- prejudice that no was shown cal services were incurred. alleged County to notify tal’s failure may not “The Commissioners medical services had been payment of the claim until consider Carpenters, there- certificate need obtained and interest, hospital, party aas real could correctly trial held that the fore the court
pursue
indigency
the claim for
as-
medical
presently
was not
liable for the
Accordingly,
sistance.
the court directed
appellant
expenses. must
Commissioners to
the claim to
certificates
of need before
obtain
Hospital.
appeal
This
taken from
County Com-
presenting its claim to
district court’s decision.
missioners.”
435,
I.
essence,
there held
the Court
what
requires
applica-
appellant
Hospital, the
was that the
tion for
benefits “must
also,
what was
to note that
case
failed
signed by
making
the party
parties
application to the clerk for
required was an
and sworn to before some
a letter re-
certification
officer authorized
state
laws
—not
obtaining the
oaths____”
payment. Upon
cer-
questing
to administer
In this
case
a claim could be
the Court held that
tificate
signed
notarized.
together
expenses
for medical
submitted
Relying upon
Medi-
University
Utah
proof
emergency situation under
of an
County,
cal
96 Idaho
Center Bonneville
31-3407.6
of then I.C.
(1974),
County ar-
581 §§ § Under 34-3404 and clerk -3405 the is The balance of 31-3407 deals with the given investigate duty fixing or cause to liability on the county, correct investigated grounds of an application, and verification of the bills. file thereafter Board of Com- § County argues that I.C. 31- missioners a statement his other find- requires county commissioners to dis ings. Where Commissioners will not be any allow claim against or demand a coun meeting regular session within the next ty for filing approv medical aid absent days, ten clerk has limited authority, properly applica al of a executed written $200, not exceeding expenditure of agree. tion. We do not Like district approve hospitalization or immediate neces- court, hold the application we sub § places sities. I.C. the com- by Carpenter signed mitted although obligation judging missioners the from notarized, was sufficient to initiate the and the clerk’s statement of procedure. claim findings whether the applicant medically County’s citing of University indigent and sought whether relief shall be Utah County, v. Bonneville 96 Idaho or, provided for, hospitalization where has (1974), P.2d proposition its already place, pay taken for it. This improper. That is inapposite. case In Uni- provision latter squarely encompasses Utah, versity the Court held that the situations, cover- are not county consider commissioners could not §§ -3405, ed 31-3404 and but are dealt aof claim for medical inwith I.C. 31-3407. of need had been benefits until certificate 31-3407 rather confusingly in the obtained and that therefore the trial court first sentence deals with allowances to indi- correctly held that the was not gents and commissioners, allows the any presently expense liable for the medical one of them individually, to order allow- However, 31-3407, issue. as it exist- $200, and, ances limited in the same time, expressly ed at that dictated such a sentence, deals with emergency situations result, providing in part: where a hospital renders service “CERTIFIED CLAIMS ONLY TO BE approval of an county aid. county ALLOWED.—The commissioners disjunctive It is the last clause of the first any must not allow claim or demand sentence that the county authorizes against services rendered claims where the services have been ren- sick or who has dered in an emergency situation and claim previously probate obtained from the sought
for reimbursement afterwards. judge, clerk of the board of com- portion 31-3407 which is here *7 missioners, justice peace of the [a applicable, legislature and which the more of certificate and must not allow need] appropriately should in have addressed a any claim or demands whatsoever section, separate reads as follows: against county for any expense in- “[Pjrovided against further claim by, of, curred or in any behalf sick or county shall be allowed for services indigent person filing before the prior approval applica- to rendered application and certificate aforesaid hospi- tion mentioned heretofore where tal renders the services to a § Laws, 1957 p. Idaho Sess. ch. indigent person emergency
subsequently there is obtained said proval heretofore filing mentioned. of certifica- Services the certificate and rendered in an emergency prece- express are defined as of conditions need were those reasonably necessary under any to alleviate of claim dent to the allowance § injury illness or if language at that untreated is I.C. 31-3407 as its read likely to cause Therefore, death University serious disabili- time. the result ty.” (Emphasis added.) Utah v. Bonneville was mandated
582 thereof, plain wording provide of the statute. This is the re- spective
not true this case. counties this state shall have powers pro- the duties and as hereinafter requirement In of certifi vided.”); County, Braun v. 102 Idaho Ada eliminated, cate of need was and I.C. 901, 903-04, (1982). 643 P.2d 1073-74 § provide simply 31-3407 was amended to that: purpose Given the two-fold of the statues in question, clearly inap- here it would be not county
“The
commissioners shall
al-
propriate
against
any
to hold that a claim
against
low
claim or demand
responsible county
indigency
county
to
for medical
services rendered
medi-
sick,
indigent,
simply
can be
cally
or otherwise
benefits
denied
filing
approval
comply
until the
submitted does not
§
application____”
requirements
the technical
of I.C.
31-
§
specific purpose
3404. The
§
Thus,
merely requires
I.C.
undoubtedly
provide
filing
approval by
of an
and its
commissioners with sufficient accurate in-
commissioners
al-
formation
which to base their decision
indigency
lowance of a claim for medical
regarding a
claim for medical
Nothing
benefits.
in the statute mandates
case,
benefits.
this
such information
if
a claim be denied
the technical re-
provided
at the
before the
met,
quirements of I.C.
are
Commissioners
November
nor do we
proper
believe that would be
oath re-
when
testified under
impose
require-
Court
such a
garding
application for
and the
benefits
ment.
Mary Day Nursery
See
Children’s
surrounding it,
cur-
thereby
Akron,
City
v.
In the absence of preju- understanding, obligation, our unnecessary So expense dice or caused if then, the district notice, court lack is to persuaded we are not ascertain indigency has been was in Medical ruling court erred in error. district that the legislature specifically defined erroneously Commissioners denied the Car- § 31-3502(1): penter application ground on the that the “ given had not notice of the indigent’ means ‘Medically person required medical services as un- of hospitalization in need who der I.C. 31-3504. adult, together who, if an her ... does spouse, income III. resources available to him from other argues also district source shall be whatever sufficient holding court erred in that there necessary was no to enable *9 basis in fact for decision the Com- medical services.”
584
sharp
definition
This
contrast to that
ters
71-
coverage
entailed
section
“indigent,”
308:
legisla-
of the term
which the
“ ‘* * *
un(jerstand
“any person
ture has defined as
who is
leg-
we
property and
destitute of
unable to
islative
to be that
order for a
intent
person
“indigent person”
an
the necessities of
be
for
life.” I.C.
general
the meaning
within
3502(7). Thus,
clear
legisla-
[of
it is
that the
medical as-
welfare
receive
statutes]
person
ture did not intend that
com-
a
be
a
lack of
sistance there must be
total
pletely destitute or
all
devoid of
resources
Rather,
leg-
resources.
we believe
in order to be considered
indi-
per-
islative intent was
include those
person
gent,
only
but
that the
be
unable
present
sons who do not have
pay
necessary
for
medical services. See
hope
further
sufficient to
resources
142,
Hargis,
McMullen v.
128 Ariz.
624
pay for all the medical and
(1980) (holding
P.2d 339
that under the
emergency in-
required
services
applicable statutory
person
159, 160, 477 P.2d
stances.’ 156 Mont.
impoverished
need not be
or devoid of all
added.)”
(Bracketed
343.
material
qualify
an
sick person,
assets to
as
Bleeker,
County v.
175
Wheatland
only
pay
person
but
be unable to
(1978).
Mont.
P.2d
50
575
care);
necessary
for
De-
medical
A review of
demon-
clearly
the record
partment
v. Trustees
Public
Welfare
Carpenter
strates that
did not have
Mr.
Ind.App.
145
251
University,
Indiana
income and resources
available
(1969) (statutes defining medi-
N.E.2d 456
pay
would
him to
enable
for
complete
require
do not
cal
provided for his
medical services
wife.
eligible
for
lack of resources in order to
testimony
of Mr.
assistance,
not have
that at the time the
disclose
all medical
pay
resources sufficient to
for
was
plication
prepared,
was
ex
required);
State
employed
and received
as
farm laborer
County,
rel. Hendrickson v. Gallatin
per month,
housing. In addi-
plus his
$750
(even
Mont.
I the result obtained see Bistline, J., anomoly.
as an As stated Hosp. Bingham Falls Consol.
Idaho
Bd.,
Cty.
(1982): changes made clear remaining
“The legislature to assist-
intent that is ‘medically indigent,’
ance for who are made say, those bills, whether catastrophic medical