Credit Bureau Enterprises v Pelo PDF

Preview

Summary

Brief...

Description

Restitution

Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. v. Pelo [mental health patient, refused to pay] COURT AND DATE: Supreme Court of Iowa (2000) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Trial Court: Pelo loses, he is personally liable for the hospital bill District Court: Pelo loses, he is personally liable for the hospital bill

ISSUE: Can one be required to pay for hospital services when one did not request or voluntarily consent to them?

TRIGGER FACTS: Pelo (defendant) left his residence after arguing with his wife and checked into a hotel. Pelo purchased a shotgun and called his wife making threats of self harm. The police were informed of his threats and they took him to the hospital. Pursuant to emergency hospitalization procedures, a probable cause hearing was held and the magistrate found that Pelo was seriously mentally impaired and likely to injure himself physically. The magistrate entered an emergency hospitalization order for 48 hours. Pelo remained at the hospital from January 813. The hospital sought compensation for medical services provided during this stay. Pelo refused to pay or authorize his insurance company to do so. The hospital assigned its claim against Pelo to Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. (Credit Bureau) (plaintiff). Credit Bureau filed suit against Pelo for the hospital charges in small claims court. The court found in favor of Credit Bureau. Pelo appealed to the district court. The district court found in favor of Credit Bureau. Pelo appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

PLAINTIFF’S MAIN ARGUMENTS: 1. Named cerro gordo county as a defendant based on the theory that they would be liable Courts response: Dismissed this claim because Pelo was hospitalized in a private hospital. DEFENDANT’S MAIN ARGUMENTS: 1. He didn’t agree to pay for services as he signed the form under duress

RULE (the law): One can be required to pay for hospital services when one did not request or voluntarily consent to them. HOLDING + REASONING: Yes. Under the theory of “contract implied in law,” where one inofficiously confers benefits upon another, the benefited party may be required to make restitution. A recipient is not required to pay when the things or services provided are forced

Restitution upon him against his will. In a situation where the recipient did not request or voluntarily consent to receive the services, rule 116 of the Restatement of Restitution provides that the recipient will nonetheless be required to pay for those things or services when the person supplying them has done the following: (1) acted inofficiously and intended to charge the recipient; (2) acted so as to prevent serious bodily harm or pain; (3) acted with no reason to believe the recipient would not have consented, if mentally competent; and (4) acted when it was impossible for the recipient to give consent or, because of mental impairment or extreme youth, the recipient’s consent would have been immaterial. In the current matter, the hospital inofficiously provided a service to Pelo, conferring a benefit upon him. Though Pelo claims he did not consent to receive these services, he is nonetheless required to pay for them because it was impossible, because of mental impairment, for him to provide consent. The magistrate’s probable cause finding that Pelo was seriously mentally impaired establishes that Pelo lacked the ability to consent to treatment. Accordingly, the district court properly held that Pelo is responsible for the payment of the medical services provided to him. The judgment of the district court is affirmed....