Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Reasonableness of Hospital Fees (Indiana)

On October 12, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Marion County Superior Court judge’s dismissal of a complaint against a hospital that the Superior Court had granted pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s complaint did sufficiently state a claim for breach of contract based upon the reasonableness of fees that the hospital charged to uninsured patients. See Allen v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49AOZ-1011-CT-1174.

The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract claim against the hospital alleging that the hospital breached its contract with them and other uninsured patients by charging them unreasonable amounts for their medical care. The plaintiffs signed a contract with the hospital prior to their medical treatment that stated that the plaintiffs agreed to pay their medical bills for the hospital’s medical care. However, these contracts did not explicitly include or refer to a fee schedule for the hospital’s medical services to be received by the plaintiffs.

The Indiana Court of Appeals stated that if a contract does not include or refer to a fee schedule for medical services to be received by an individual, then it is inferred that the hospital may only charge a reasonable fee for such services.

The plaintiffs in this case were charged the hospital’s chargemaster rates for the medical services they received. The plaintiffs contend that the chargemaster rates were unreasonable. Thus, the plaintiffs contend that the hospital breached its contract with the plaintiffs by not charging them reasonable charges.

The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded this case for further proceedings.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Heather Fesko Delgado is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Chicago office and a member of the firm’s Heathcare Department. Ms. Delgado practices exclusively in the healthcare transactional, regulatory and compliance areas.

312-338-5905

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.