HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA, INC. v. WHETSEL

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA, INC. v. WHETSEL
2007 OK 101
173 P.3d 1203
Case Number: 104227
Decided: 12/18/2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA, INC. DBA OU MEDICAL CENTER FKA UNIVERSITY HEALTH PARTNERS, Plaintiff/Respondent
v.
JOHN WHETSEL, OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF, AND OKLAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Defendants/Petitioners.

ON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A CERTIFIED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OKLAHOMA COUNTY

Vicki L. Robertson, Judge

¶0 ACTION BY HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA TO RECOVER FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OF INMATES IN THE CUSTODY OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STANDS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PRONOUNCEMENT.

Travis White and James B. Robertson, Assistant District Attorneys, Oklahoma City, for defendants/petitioners
Kieran D. Maye, Jr. and Sarah M. Jernigan, Miller Dollarhide, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff/respondent

OPALA, J.

¶1 The question presented on certiorari is whether the district court erred in entering a summary adjudication that holds the sheriff liable as a matter of law for the cost of medical care rendered to inmates in the county's custody for treatment of conditions that pre-existed their arrest. We answer in the negative and affirm the decision.

I.
ANATOMY OF LITIGATION

¶2 This case deals with medical care procured by the Oklahoma County Sheriff and Oklahoma County Board of Commissioners, petitioners (collectively referred to as County), for inmates in the custody of the county. The treatment included conditions which pre-existed the prisoners' arrest. The facility providing the care, HCA Health Services of Oklahoma d/b/a OU Medical Center, respondent, sued to recover the value of medical services rendered between February 2003 and September 2006.

¶3 During the period in question the Oklahoma County Sheriff's office brought for HCA's treatment inmates in need of medical care. HCA requested payment in the amount of $2,250,575.58. The County determined much of the expense charged was for the treatment of conditions that pre-existed the prisoners' arrest and refused payment. HCA brought the suit on 7 July 2005.

¶4 On 4 August 2006 HCA sought summary adjudication on the issue of liability. It argued that, as a matter of law, the County had a constitutional and statutory duty to provide medical care for its inmates. That care included pre-existing conditions. After receiving the County's response the trial court ruled that the County is liable as a matter of law for the cost of all medical care provided to inmates regardless of when and how the treated condition arose.

¶5 County moved to certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal under the provisions of 12 O. S. 2001 § 952 (b)(3). It urged the ruling substantially affected the merits of the controversy. The trial court agreed and certified the nonfinal ruling for interlocutory appeal under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 1.50.

II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6 The dispositive issue to be reviewed is whether the trial court erred in declaring County liable as a matter of law for payment to HCA for that part of rendered treatment which affected the prisoners' pre-existing conditions. Summary relief issues are reviewable under the de novo standard. All facts and inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant. This court's duty is first to scrutinize all evidentiary material in the case for its legal competence and sufficiency and then to determine whether there is a material fact in dispute. The trial court's summary adjudication order is subject to affirmance only if there is no material fact in controversy and the law favors the movant's claim.

III.
THE DUTY OF THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE
MEDICAL TREATMENT

¶7 While under federal law it is the constitutional duty of the responsible government agencies to provide medical care for inmates

¶8 The Oklahoma legislature has provided an adequate framework for the allocation of treatment costs of inmates who are in county custody. The provisions of

¶9 Other jurisdictions have established more precise procedures for the payment of an inmate's medical treatment.

IV.
SUMMARY

¶

¶11 Summary adjudication is affirmed and cause stands remanded for further proceedings to be conducted in a manner consistent with this pronouncement.

¶12 Winchester, C.J., Edmondson, V.C.J., Hargrave, Kauger, Watt, Taylor and Colbert, JJ., concur

¶13 Reif, J., not participating

FOOTNOTES

1 Identified herein are only those counsel for the parties whose names appear on the briefs and who have entered an appearance in this cause (as required by Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.5(a), 12 O.S.2001, Ch. 15, App.1).

2 State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK, ¶ 25, 131 P.3d 116, 125. See also Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, ¶5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. ("Because the trial court's disposition was effected by summary judgment, the issues on review stand before us for de novo examination")

3 City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 103 S. Ct. 2979, 77 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1983). Here the Court held that "[t]he Due Process Clause, however, does require the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to persons… who have been injured while being apprehended by the police." 463 U.S. 239, 244.

4 Revere, 463 U.S. at 245.

5 The terms of 57 O.S. 2001 § 52 provide in pertinent part, "[i]t shall be the duty of the sheriff of each county to provide bed clothing, washing, board and medical care when required, and all necessities for the comfort and welfare of prisoners."

6 State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Board of County Commissioners of McClain County, 1992 OK 29, 829 P.2d 961 (holding that there is a duty to treat those in custody regardless of how the need for that treatment arose), see also State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, 1991 OK CIV APP 86, 831 P.2d 1006 (holding that the county is liable for treatment costs regardless of indigence status of person in custody or attempts by DHS (Department of Human Services) to collect directly from the inmate), see also City of Tulsa v. Hillcrest Medical Center, 1956 OK 21, 292 P.2d 430 (holding that the chief of police has a duty to provide necessary medical treatment to inmates).

7 19 O.S. 2001 § 746.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 City of Durant v. Cicio, 2002 OK 52, ¶ 32, 50 P.3d 218, 220, see also World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49, ¶ 7, 32 P.3d 829, 834.

11 Colorado developed C.R.S.A. § 17-26-104.5 to address the issue of inmate treatment costs.

12 C.R.S.A. § 17-26-104.5(3).

13 C.R.S.A. § 17-26-104.5(1, 4).