Jeff Nelson v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2017, 5:25 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert T. Garwood Patrick C. Thomas Evansville, Indiana Matthew D. Malcolm Evansville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeff Nelson, August 24, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 82A01-1611-CC-2690 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court Deaconess Hospital, Inc., The Honorable Robert J. Tornatta, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D06-1506-CC-3030

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary [1] Jeff Nelson appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment against him in favor

of Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (Deaconess) on its action to collect outstanding

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 6

medical bills. On appeal, Nelson argues that the trial court’s judgment was

clearly erroneous. [2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History [3] Nelson received emergency medical services at Deaconess on July 20, 2010.

Nelson had medical coverage through Pekin Insurance (Pekin) at that time, but

he did not provide his insurance information to Deaconess. Upon his

admission to the hospital, Nelson signed a Financial Responsibility Form

(FRF) in which he agreed to be responsible for the costs associated with his

hospitalization. The FRF also contained the following language:

If you have active insurance coverage, we will bill your insurance company. It is the patient’s responsibility to understand his/her insurance coverage. You will receive a monthly statement if your account has a patient due balance. Payment of deductibles, non-covered services and co-payments are the patient’s responsibility.

Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 3 at 7. Nelson also signed a Consent for Medical

Treatment form (Consent), which listed his rights and responsibilities as a

patient. Among the responsibilities listed was that Nelson would “assure that

financial obligations are fulfilled as promptly as possible.” Id. at 10. [4] Following Nelson’s discharge, Deaconess billed him separately for each of the

four services he received. Because Deaconess had not been provided with

Nelson’s insurance information, it did not bill Pekin for any portion of those

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 6

expenses. Instead, Deaconess sent Nelson a total of eight invoices (two for

each service he received), each of which instructed Nelson to check a box if his

insurance information had changed and indicate such changes on the reverse

side. All of the invoices listed an insurance balance of zero. [5] Deaconess received neither payment nor insurance information from Nelson,

so it forwarded the accounts to its extended billing office, Complete Billing

Services (CBS). CBS mailed Nelson multiple letters demanding payment on

Deaconess’s behalf. Nelson received letters from CBS but claims that he

questioned their legitimacy. When a CBS representative contacted Nelson by

phone, Nelson refused to verify his information. Despite CBS’s repeated

requests for payment, Nelson did not contact Deaconess to determine whether

CBS was authorized to act on its behalf. When CBS was unsuccessful in

collecting payment from Nelson, the accounts were assigned to a collection

agency, which also mailed letters to Nelson and attempted to telephone him

regarding the balances due. All collection efforts were unsuccessful. [6] Deaconess filed its complaint for unpaid medical bills against Nelson on July

27, 2015. A bench trial was held on October 27, 2016, at the conclusion of

which the trial court found in Deaconess’s favor and entered judgment against

Nelson in the amount of $9,250.00. Nelson now appeals.

Discussion & Decision [7] Although the parties did not request special findings and conclusions thereon

pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A), the trial court sua sponte made limited oral

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 6

findings from the bench. See Nunn Law Office v. Rosenthal, 905 N.E.2d 513, 517-

18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that oral findings and conclusions may suffice

for the purposes of T.R. 52(A)). Pursuant to T.R. 52(A), we “shall not set aside

the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given

to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”

Further, where, as here, the trial court enters findings sua sponte, “the specific

findings control only as to the issues they cover, while a general judgment

standard applies to any issues upon which the court has not made findings.” In

re Estate of Hannebaum, 999 N.E.2d 972, 973-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A general

judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence presented

at trial. Kietzman v. Kietzman, 992 N.E.2d 946, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). [8] Nelson’s appellate arguments are based on evidence unfavorable to the trial

court’s judgment.1 Specifically, he argues that when he received one of the first

invoices from Deaconess, he mailed the bill and his insurance information back

to Deaconess. Nelson claims he received no further correspondence from

Deaconess, and consequently believed the matter to be resolved. Nelson argues

that Deaconess was obligated under the terms of the FRF to bill Pekin for the

services he received, and that Deaconess’s failure to do so within the time

allotted under his Pekin insurance policy resulted in a loss of insurance

coverage. In other words, Nelson argues that Deaconess was required to bill

1 We remind Nelson’s counsel of his duty under the appellate rules to recite the facts according to the applicable standard of review and to support factual assertions with citation to the record. See Ind. App. R. 22(C); Ind. App. R. 46(A)(5), (6), (8).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 6

Pekin “[a]s a condition precedent to any financial responsibility” on Nelson’s

part, and that it breached the contract by failing to do so. Appellant’s Brief at 10. [9] Nelson fails to note, however, that a Deaconess representative testified that

Deaconess never received Nelson’s insurance information, and the trial court

made no findings on this issue. Thus, the general judgment standard applies to

this issue, and we are obliged to consider only the evidence favorable to

Deaconess as the prevailing party and the reasonable inferences flowing

therefrom. See Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 402 n.5 (Ind. 1991) (noting

that in reviewing general judgments issued in civil cases tried to the bench, the

appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of

witnesses, and considers only the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and

the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it). [10] Nelson agreed in the FRF to be responsible for the costs associated with his

hospitalization, and the evidence and inferences favorable to the judgment

establish that Nelson did not provide Deaconess with his insurance information

despite its continued collection efforts. Thus, even if we assume it was solely

Deaconess’s responsibility under the FRF to see to it that Nelson’s insurer was

billed for the services Nelson received, Nelson prevented Deaconess from doing

so. “[T]he common law of contracts excuses performance of one party where

the other party wrongfully prevents that performance.” Rogier v. Am. Testing &

Eng’g Corp., 734 N.E.2d 606, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. See also

Hamlin v. Steward, 622 N.E.2d 535, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that “a

party may not rely on the failure of a condition precedent to excuse

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 6

performance where that party’s action or inaction caused the condition to be

unfulfilled” (quoting Kokomo Veterans, Inc. v. Schick, 439 N.E.2d 639, 645 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1982), trans. denied)). Because Nelson’s failure to provide his

insurance information made it impossible for Deaconess to bill Pekin, Nelson

cannot escape liability for his medical bills on that basis. Furthermore, because

we can affirm the trial court’s judgment fully on this basis, we need not address

the other specific arguments Nelson raises on appeal. [11] Judgment affirmed. [12] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 6