THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONALD CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-110285
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
May 1, 2012
[Cite as Univ. Hosp. v. Campbell, 2012-Ohio-1909.]
TRIAL NO. A-0911812; OPINION ON RECONSIDERATION; Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas; Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
O‘Connor, Acciani & Levy and Robert A. Burke, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Donald Campbell appeals the summary judgment entered by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiff-appellee The University Hospital (“University“) in a suit to collect payment for medical services.
Campbell‘s Medical Bill and His Discovery Request
{¶2} In 2009, Campbell was treated at University. At the time of his treatment, he did not have medical-insurance coverage. On December 15, 2009, University filed a complaint against Campbell alleging that he had failed to pay for the services. University sought compensation in the amount of $2,729.80.
{¶3} During discovery, Campbell sought production of University‘s contracts with insurers to demonstrate that University had routinely allowed discounts, or “write-offs,” to patients who had medical-insurance coverage. When University refused to produce those contracts, Campbell filed a motion to compel their production.
{¶4} In July 2010, University filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was supported by the affidavit of University‘s manager of patient financial services, who averred that Campbell owed the amount sought in the complaint. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of University for the full amount.
{¶5} In an opinion released April 20, 2012, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In doing so, we stated that University had “conceded that its standard practice was to afford a 40-percent discount to insured patients”
The Motion to Compel
{¶7} In a single assignment of error, Campbell contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of University. He first argues that the court erred in denying his motion to compel the production of the contracts reflecting write-offs for insured patients. He argues that the write-offs accorded to insurers were relevant to demonstrate that the amount he had been charged was unreasonable.
{¶8} We find no merit in Campbell‘s argument. An appellate court reviews the trial court‘s disposition of discovery matters under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Grace v. Mastruserio, 182 Ohio App.3d 243, 2007-Ohio-3942, 912 N.E.2d 608, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. As we discuss fully below, the amount University charged insured patients was irrelevant to the value of the services rendered to Campbell, who was uninsured. Thus, the trial court‘s denial of the motion to compel was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.
{¶9} Campbell next argues that the trial court‘s entry of summary judgment was erroneous.
{¶10} Under
{¶11} In this case, summary judgment was proper. Although the value of medical services is a question of fact, a hospital is entitled to a presumption that the value of the services rendered is the amount of its customary charge. See Miami Valley Hosp. v. Middleton, 2nd Dist. No. 24240, 2011-Ohio-5069, ¶ 21, citing St. Vincent Med. Ctr. v. Sader, 100 Ohio App.3d 379, 384, 654 N.E.2d 144 (6th Dist.1995).
{¶12} Here, University provided itemized statements of the treatment administered to Campbell with an affidavit stating that Campbell owed the hospital the amounts specified in the statements. Campbell did not dispute that he had received the specified treatment, and he presented no competent evidence to demonstrate that the charges were excessive.
{¶13} But Campbell argues that the trial court erred in refusing to consider University‘s practice of granting write-offs to insured patients. He contends
{¶14} Robinson and Jaques addressed whether insurance write-offs were admissible to demonstrate the reasonable costs of medical fees under the common-law collateral-source rule and under
{¶15} Thus, the disputes in Robinson and Jaques concerned the effect of a write-off in a tort action where such a discount had already occurred; the cases did not create or recognize a right to any reduction in charges for an uninsured obligor in a collections case. See Middleton at ¶ 27 (noting that Robinson did not address the issue of insurance write-offs in collections cases).
{¶16} Campbell cites a case from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas for the proposition that write-offs are relevant in determining the reasonable value of services in a collections case. See Akron Gen. Med. Ctr. v. Welms, 160 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2010-Ohio-5539, 937 N.E.2d 1106 (C.P.). But we are not bound by Welms, which extended the holding in Robinson beyond its proper scope.
{¶17} Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider University‘s billing practices with respect to insured patients. University was entitled to grant write-offs to insured patients in consideration of the volume of
Conclusion
{¶18} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DINKELACKER and FISCHER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
HILDEBRANDT
Presiding Judge