HOSPITAL & DOCTORS SERVICE BUREAU v. LENNOX MITCHELL

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6512-04T26512-04T2

HOSPITAL & DOCTORS SERVICE BUREAU,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LENNOX MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

 

Submitted December 20, 2006 - Decided April 18, 2007

Before Judges Wefing, Yannotti and Messano.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Bergen County, No. L-2546-04.

Appellant submitted a pro se brief.

Samuel J. Weinstein, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a trial court order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Defendant was seriously injured in an automobile accident and received medical care and treatment at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center. The amount of Personal Injury Protection insurance available to defendant was insufficient to cover all of his medical bills, and in this suit, plaintiff, the assignee of Englewood Hospital, sought to recover the balance due for the care provided to defendant.

In 2004 the trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, and we reversed, noting that defendant had filed opposition to the motion which had not been considered by the trial court. On remand, having considered defendant's opposition, the trial court again granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant has appealed from that second grant of summary judgment.

On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff is precluded from maintaining this suit because 1) it has failed to file a bond in accordance with the statute governing collection agencies, N.J.S.A. 45:18-1 to -5; 2) it is not licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey; 3) there is no proof it is an assignee; 4) the non-profit status of Englewood Hospital bars it from making an assignment; and 5) the inclusion of interest in the amount of the judgment entered on remand was improper.

As to defendant's first contention, he did not raise that issue before the trial court. It is improper to raise such an issue for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). Defendant's second argument lacks merit; it is clear that plaintiff is not suing for medical care that it provided but, rather, medical care provided by Englewood Hospital.

Similarly, we reject defendant's argument directed to the validity of the assignments under which plaintiff commenced this suit. Defendant provides no authority to support his contention that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment because the assignments under which it brought suit were not on the letterhead of the hospital and were not drafted by the hospital. It is sufficient that the assignments "contain clear evidence of the [hospital's] intent to transfer [its] rights" to plaintiff and that the assignments' subject matter are "capable of being readily identified." Berkowitz v. Haigood, 256 N.J. Super. 342, 346 (Law Div. 1992).

We also reject defendant's fourth argument. That Englewood Hospital may be a non-profit institution organized under Title 15 of the New Jersey statutes does not mean that it is subject to the terms of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code governing charitable institutions. The assignments, moreover, were executed to facilitate collection, not to thwart collection. Thus, N.J.S.A. 15A:14-10 to which defendant points is wholly inapplicable.

Finally, there is nothing to indicate that the date stamp of June 14, 2005, on the trial court's order of July 14, 2005, was anything other than a clerical error.

The order under review is affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-6512-04T2

April 18, 2007