Title: Medical Center Hospital of VT v. Lorrain

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Medical Center Hospital of Vermont v. Lorrain  (94-669); 165 Vt 12; 675 A.2d 1326

[Opinion Filed 08-Mar-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                     No. 94-669


Medical Center Hospital of Vermont                     Supreme Court

                                                       On Appeal from
    v.                                                 Chittenden Superior Court

Derek Lorrain and Patricia Lorrain                     October Term, 1995


Matthew I. Katz (summary judgment) and
Linda Levitt (final judgment), JJ.

David W. M. Conard of Portnow, Little & Cicchetti, Burlington, for
  plaintiff-appellee

Judith L. Dillon of Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       MORSE, J.   Defendant Patricia Lorrain, whose husband Derek received
  medical services from plaintiff Medical Center Hospital of Vermont (MCHV),
  appeals the superior court's grant of summary judgment to MCHV, with
  respect to her, in this collection action against the Lorrains.  We
  reverse.

       MCHV provided care to Derek Lorrain for a work-related injury.  Upon
  admission to the hospital, he agreed in writing to pay for uninsured or
  unreimbursed fees resulting from his care. MCHV did not require his wife to
  sign a payment guarantee.  When payment of the $7000 bill was not
  forthcoming from either Mr. Lorrain or his workers' compensation providers,
  MCHV brought a collection action against the Lorrains.   Patricia Lorrain
  opposed MCHV's motion for summary judgment, arguing that, under 15 V.S.A. §
  66, a wife is not liable for the sole debts of her husband.  MCHV countered
  that there is an exception to this general rule for necessary medical
  services.  The superior court agreed and adopted the reasoning of a New
  Jersey Supreme Court decision that, faced with an equal protection
  challenge, extended the common-law

 

  necessaries doctrine to wives as well as husbands.  See Jersey Shore
  Medical Center, Inc. v. Estate of Baum,