OPINION
Appellants-defendants David K. Galloway and Erica V. Galloway appeal from a judgment in favor of The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. ("Hospital") in an action for unpаid medical services.
The facts most favorable to the judgment disclose that Erica Galloway was transported
During the course of the hospitalization, David Galloway, Erica's husband, assumed the responsibility of providing pertinent information to Kаren Johnson from Hospital's business and admission department. During a meeting with Johnson, David signed admission forms as guarantor for both Erica and the child. David did not sign the back of the forms which contained financial responsibility language. David, however, as an attorney, was aware such clauses were contained on the forms.
David informed Johnson that he did not have any health insurance. The Galloways had planned to prepay Hospital's charges for delivery, had the child not been born premаturely. Upon learning of the Galloways' lack of insurance, Johnson discussed financial aid programs with David.
Erica and the child were discharged from Hospital on July 14, 1991. The total bill for medical services rendered to Erica was $11,-546.19. The total bill for medical services rendered to the child was $2,801.20. The Galloways were billed for these services but paid no sums on either of the accounts. Although Hospital's records show that an itemized statement was generated on July 14, 1991, David testified that he never received a copy of the statement until after litigation was commenced.
On June 19, 1992, Hospital filed its complaint in the Porter Superior Court alleging that the Gallowаys were indebted to Hospital for hospital care and services. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Hospital and against the Galloways in the amount of $14,347.39. In reaching its decision, the court concluded because of Hospital's delay in providing the Galloways with an itemized bill for their review, prejudgment intеrest was not appropriate. The Galloways now appeal.
Two issues are presented for our review:
(1) whether the trial court properly concluded that the Galloways were indebted to Hospital for medical services rendered; and
(2) whether the charges for medical care were usual, customary, and reasonable.
As requested by the Galloways, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). When findings of fact and conclusions of law are requested by a party, this Court first determines whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Bauer v. Harris (1993), Ind. App.,
The Galloways contend the evidence failed to establish their liability for payment of the services rendered under a contractual theory. The Galloways further assert they did not enter into a contract with Hospital as there was no mutual assent or meeting of the minds, and they were under extreme duress at the time medical services were provided.
The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law do not support a judgment based upon an express or "implied in fact" сontract, although there may have been evidence to support such a judgment. Rather, the trial court's judgment was based on a quasi-contractual theory. Sрecifically, the trial court found Erica received medical care and incurred medical bills in the amount of $11,546.19, and the child received medical carе and incurred medical bills in the amount of $2,801.20. The court also found that the care which was provided was medically necessary and the costs were usual, customary, and reasonable.
Quasi-contracts, also referred to as contracts "implied in law," are not contracts
In the present case, the Galloways do not dispute the fact that they received valuable services from Hospital or that the services provided were medically necessary. Additionally, the fact the Galloways went to the Hospital's emergency room demonstrates thеir implied request for medical service. Hence, a benefit-medical services-was rendered to the Galloways at their implied request and under cireumstanсes which equity demands they pay Hospital therefore in order to prevent an unjust enrichment.
The Galloways also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that Hospital's charges were usual, customary, and reasonable. Initially, this Court notes that the Galloways failed to object to thе qualifications of Gregory Yore, controller of Hospital, to testify as to the reasonableness of Hospital's charges; therefore, any attempt to now challenge his competency has been waived. See W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink (1991), Ind. App.,
Yore testified that Hospital's charges were comparable to other facilities in northwest Indiana. He further stated that Hospital's charges were based upon Hospital's budgetary needs. The fact that Hospital's charges are based on the сosts associated with providing health care does not make the charges unreasonable.
The amount of a statement, while not conclusive, is prima fаcia proof of the amount owed on the account. Auffenberg v. Board of Trustees (1995), Ind.App.,
"'proof of the total sum represented by the invoices may be sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, if (1) there is no objection by the defendant to require plaintiff tо prove each individual item of the account, and if (2) the finder of fact believes the plaintiffs evidence.'"
Id.,
In the present case, Yore testified as to thе procedure used by Hospital to bill patients. Doctors would request a specific medication for a patient, the pharmacy would then send the medication to the nurse's station and the patient's account would be charged. If the medication was administered, the charge would stand; however, if the medicatiоn was not needed, it would be returned to the pharmacy and the patient's account would be credited. The only charges specifically challenged by the Galloways at trial involved multiple lab tests performed on the same day and varying medication charges. Yore, however, explained that patients could receive more than one of the same laboratory tests on a particular day, and the varying charges for the same medication were attributable to the different dosages which were administered. The Gal-loways merely request this Court to reweigh the evidence, which it will not do. See Tomahawk Village Apartments,
Affirmed.