*1 PARTNERS, HEALTH CLARIAN al., Appellants-Defendants,
et EVANS, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Phillip
No. 84A04-0511-CV-632. of Indiana. Appeals
Court
June III, L. Harda-
Rudolph Pyle, R. Donald IN, mon, Attorneys Ap- Indianapolis, pellant. K. Juergensen, Ryan
Randall L. John- IN, son, Keller, At- Indianapolis, Keller & torneys Appellee.
OPINION SHARPNACK, Judge. (“Ciarían”) ap- Health Partners Ciarían its denial of motion the trial court’s peals error, from stemmed correct declaratory judgment order Ciarían estopped Phillip Evans for pursuing payments that were excess bills lien amount Ciarían the reduced from Evans’s raises one proceeds.1 Ciarían brief, proceeds under argues also of Evans’s appellant's In its Spe- Appellant's Brief Act. precluding "other court erred that the trial Emergency Medi- cifically, Ciarían references providers" did not hold medical service ("EMGI"), Radiology, Group, Clarian un- cal Inc. pursuing payment for lien from Surgical Science and Trauma following and Center the disbursement medical bills *2 issue, which just we restate as whether the curred medical bills of under $50,000.00. order, declaratory judgment which Ciarían from 2. Defendants and Union Cia- underlying debt Evans owed to Ciarí- Partners, Health properly rían Inc. hen after Clarian’s was re- against filed in [Evans] amount, for a leased reduced $3,314.50 $15,663.33 sums and Statute. We reverse respectively. and remand. 3. [Evans] retained the law firm of represent Keller & Keller to him in 2003, In July The relevant facts follow. personal injury against his case was a in a passenger Evans vehicle that negligently driver who caused his in was involved a collision. As a result injuries. [Evans’s] counsel success- collision, Evans his hand fully negotiated a settlement with required surgery and was and have alleged tortfeasor’s insurance therapy. Evans received medical care $25,000.00. carrier The Com- providers, including from fourteen medical plaint by filed [Evans] indicates Ciarían, expenses and incurred to- $25,000.00 exception just taling Ciarían later proceeds, settlement [Evans] perfected $15,663.33 a hospital totaling (medical no other in- available funds against Evans. surance, under insured motorists eventually coverage) into his entered a settle- medi- cal expenses. This issue is not company ment with the driver’s insurance dis- puted by $25,000 parties. liability policy limits. November Evans filed a complaint Indiana Code 32-33-4 controls with declaratory judgment against four- respect to the division of the settle- providers teen medical sought ment among parties. court’s assistance in distributing his 1 of provides Section the statute $25,000 only hospitals may against file liens judgments or settlements. Section The trial court held hearing on the 2 of the provides statute that a hos- thereafter, declaratory and, judgment2 en- pital junior lien is and inferior to any order, provided: tered an for attorneys’ claims fees or ex- question 1.The presented this case penses in recovering incurred is the proper division of the settle- presented settlement. The evidence received [Evans] shows that counsel in- [Evans’s] personal injuries as result of re- curred in fees and ex- ceived in an automobile accident. penses representing [Evans] accident, As result this [Evans] his personal injury claim. The received medical treatment from the amount of expenses these fees and Defendant’s herein disputed. [sic] ("CSST”) part hearing of these other medical ser- 2. This was also scheduled to cover providers appears EMGI, vice to include them as Radiology, motions filed appellants appeal. in this We note that Clari- set judgments and CSST to aside default en- appellant's summary an's case and our against tered them. only appel- court’s docket list Ciarían Thus, appeal. lant in this we will discuss the facts relevant to Ciarían. (b) $8,760.68 attorneys, to [Evans’s] fees and attorneys’ Subtracting Keller; Keller & total costs remaining balance amount leaves Partners, $8,870.07to Ciarían Health Unfortunately, this Inc.; *3 not sufficient to is amount (d) $2,360.25to Hospital. Union (2) liens that have hospital the two filed, unpaid the other let alone been The lienholders are further ordered medical bills. receipt their upon liens of release their however, statute, contemplate[s] of The proceeds. 6. The share the settlement Specifically, remaining providers I.C. of possibility. this claims 33—4—[3](c)provides estopped that herein are and defendents ] [sic] [§ 32— they precluded pursuing the settlement in the event are[3] even satisfy the he inadequate any account balance which [Evans] ceeds are 11, 2003, liens, July injured person may resulting is still enti- owe from the at Appendix to 20% of the Appellant’s tled vehicle accident. —or remaining balance filed a motion to cor- 77-79. Ciarían then pro error, between later must divided rata rect which was deemed denied. be to the stat- pursuant lien holders The sole issue is whether ute. order, declaratory judgment only hos- applies statute Since the (which by may definition pital liens owed to Ciarí- underlying debt that Evans hospital) ques- a be filed hospital lien was re an after Clarian’s any, if right, remains as to what tion amount, was for a reduced leased providers have the other medical Here, the Lien Statute. It against the settlement declaratory order judgment court’s statutory from the lan- apparent is interpretation of Ind. on its was based legislative it guage that was 32-33-4-3, § as the also referred to Code persons that receive tent interpretation Statute. The Hospital Lien any of settlement result- least 20% law, is a question of a statute claim, a ing from a novo questions law under de review regardless of the total amount a trial no deference to standard and owe bills. It injured party’s medical Tankersley conclusions. legal court’s legislative purpose defeat the would Inc., 204 Hosp., N.E.2d Parkview not entitled and intent allow those (Ind.2003), reh’g denied. this case hospital to file liens—in providers— other medical [Evans’s] a Act affords “The any against [Evans] to assert against impose a hospital the medical bills. or to a paid therefore, ORDERED, It JUDGED is a rendered to charges for treatment cover Twenty-five AND DECREED that underlying purpose patient.” Id. “The in settlement Thousand Dollars ‘[e]nsure is to [Hospital Act] shall divided as follows: ser for their compensated are ” Ass’n (quoting National Ins. [Evans]; vices.’ (a)$5,000.00 to Appel- pro judge's initials. by the tem "they lowed are” were handwritten The words Appendix at 79. typed were fol- lant's order and the trial court’s Hosp.,
v. Parkview Mem’l 590 N.E.2d the insurance claims in cooperation 1141, 1144(Ind.Ct.App.1992)). patient. compromise settlement or If § Indiana provides: Code 32-38-4-3 (b)(1) subject is to subsection an (a) firm, A person, partnership, amount that would association, a liability company, limited (20%) percent receive less than twenty corporation or a maintaining the settlement or full owned, or a Indiana main- compromise all the liens created un- if tained, operated by or the state or a this chapter full, der were political subdivision has a lien for all must be reduced on a necessary charges reasonable *4 basis to the extent that will the care, treatment, hospital and mainte- (20%) patient twenty percent to receive patient nance of a (including emergency the amount. full provided by ambulance services the hos- added). (emphasis action, suit, pital) upon any cause or statute, By this our legislature gives the accruing patient, to the or in the hospital specific a in property interest death, patient’s case of patient’s the the accruing otherwise patient to the
legal representative, because of the ill- care, treatment, the health injuries ness or that: by and maintenance hospi- rendered the (1) action, gave rise to the cause of patient tal its hospital when the has suit, claim; or properly perfected lien. its With a (2) care, necessitated the hospital properly perfected lien the amount treatment, and maintenance. provided of services hospital’s pa- to the (b) provided The lien for in subsection tient, hospital the a direct (a): the insurance and other settle- paid patient funds which are to the
(1)
except
provided in subsection
by
person
the
claimed
be liable for
(c), applies
any
amount obtained or
patient’s injuries
or that person’s
by
patient by
settle-
agent.
compromise
ment or
or
rendered
en-
Ass’n,
by
tered into
by
or
National
Ins.
(5) must
first
Cullimore,
be reduced
Cullimore was a passen-
amount of
ger
medical insurance
ain
vehicle that was
involved
a
ceeds
hospital
Cullimore,
to the
on behalf of
collision.
us to our reverse decision medical expenses hospital. Cullimore. owed to a Our Appellee’s at legislature chosen, Brief decline We Evans’s the Hospital via Act, request. protect Based on previous interpre- hospitals our and ensure tation that Hospital they compensated of subsection are at least in part Cullimore, op. Statute them services. See at 5 slip (quot- conclude ing Tankersley that the trial court when it Hosp., Inc., erred ordered Parkview 204). Ciarían was 791 at N.E.2d quali- Providers not underlying “hospitals” fied protected remainder debt that not Cullimore, See, Ciarían. e.g., owed Lien Act able pursue are N.E.2d also the full See State v. amounts owed them by (Ind.2003) Dugan, 793 N.E.2d usual It incongruous, means. would be then, just (providing important it is allow hospitals pursue recognize what the statute does not say as remainder of debt to them owed out- recognize it is to say). what it side of Any does the settlement. other result actually protection would result in less reasons, For foregoing we reverse very entity legislature has deter- the trial court’s denial of Clarian’s motion protected.5 mined should error correct and the trial court’s de- Lien Act ensures that will claratory judgment order remand to recompense. receive some There is no the trial court. indication legislature intended the Reversed remanded. guaranty payment of some would be the quid pro quo foregoing the balance. It NAJAM, J. concurs. does not limit a hospital’s ability to pursue *6 ROBB, separate J. concurs opinion. with full compensation. Subject to these com- ments, I with majority. concur ROBB, Judge, concurring separate with opinion. I
Although concur majority, I
write separately to emphasize that the re-
sult we have reached herein avoids what
could, facts, other inconsistent Here,
result.
are concerned
with
supreme
recently
5. Our
court
[providers]
decided the
to extend to
unbridled collection
case
Chiropractic
of Midtown
rights
v. Illinois Farm-
statutory rights
far in excess of the
Co.,
(Ind., 2006).
ers Ins.