Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06150/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kris K. Agrawal
Appellant
Associated Credit Services, Inc.
Appellee
Norman Regional Hospital
Appellee

Document Text:

., 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FEB 1 1 91 

---------"""OBERT L. 1-IOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KRIS K. AGRAWAL, an individual, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

NORMAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, a ) 

division of City of Norman; ) 

ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES, INC., ) 

a Texas corporation, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Clerk 

No. 90-6150 

(D.C. No. CIV-88-1188-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Kris K. Agrawal (Plaintiff) appeals the decision of the 

district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. 

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant hospital 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 1 
asserting a violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1601 et. seq., by reporting false and/or erroneous 

information to a credit bureau in violation of§ 1666(a). 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment supported by an 

affidavit and other materials. The factual and legal thrust of 

this motion was that defendant never agreed to extend credit to 

plaintiff and therefore plaintiff had no claim under the Consumer 

Credit Protection Act. 

Plaintiff filed a response 

defendant's factual contention 

credit, and plaintiff further 

which failed to address 

that plaintiff was not extended 

failed to controvert any of 

defendant's stated facts. The district court granted defendant's 

motion for summary judgment. 

On appeal plaintiff states the issue simply as whether the 

trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Plaintiff argues 

that she is entitled to all favorable inferences and argues that 

there exists a genuine issue of material fact and asserts this 

fact is evidenced by a financial agreement, an argument plaintiff 

failed to raise before the district court. 

A summary judgment is a procedural device whereby no trial is 

had if the material facts are not in dispute. The judge then 

decides the case as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. When 

one party desires summary judgment, facts are submitted to the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 2 
court. The other party then has the obligation of presenting 

facts to the court showing it is entitled to 

obligation may only be satisfied with facts. 

recover. This 

When we review a 

grant of summary judgment we review it de novo, exactly as did the 

district court. We examine the record to determine whether any 

genuine issue of material fact remains, and if not, whether the 

substantive law was correctly applied. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. v. 

Producer's Gas Co., 870 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir. 1989). 

In the instant case the defendant presented facts by an 

affidavit and other materials that clearly establish defendant did 

not extend any credit to plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to contest 

any of these facts; nor did plaintiff offer any additional 

material facts. We therefore find, as did the trial court, that 

there exists no genuine issue of material fact. These facts show 

that defendant provided medical services to plaintiff's minor 

daughter and immediately demanded payment in full. There is 

simply no evidence that would show defendant extended any credit 

or entered into any type of credit transaction with plaintiff. 

Plaintiff now argues for the first time that a financial 

agreement, which was attached to plaintiff's deposition, evidences 

defendant's intention to an extension of credit. Generally, we do 

not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. Farmers 

Ins. Co. v. Hubbard, 869 F.2d 565, 570 (10th Cir. 1989); Denis v. 

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 849 (11th Cir. 1986). 

Nevertheless, were we to consider this issue we would clearly be 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 3 
compelled to look at the undisputed affidavit filed by defendant, 

which states this is merely a form that would allow a direct claim 

to a patient's health insurance carrier for immediate payment. 

This form clearly provides that amounts owed are due when billed. 

The pivotal issue in this case is whether the hospital 

extended credit to plaintiff. If there was no extension of 

"consumer credit," the law at issue imposes no obligation upon the 

hospital. American Express Co. v. Koerner, 452 U.S. 233, 240 

(1981). "Credit" is defined in§ 1602(e) as a "right granted by a 

creditor to a debtor to defer payment." At the time of the 

summary judgment, defendant presented factual evidence showing 

that no credit had been given to plaintiff and plaintiff failed to 

respond. There are no factual issues present, and summary 

judgment for the defendant was appropriate. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's 

Order of March 16, 1990, a copy of which is attached. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 4 
~ 

• 

I 

' 

I 

~ 

' 

' 

I 

' 

• 

I 

• 

.. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TI-!]=' J L~J 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA :,;:Jl j 6'-J, 

KRIS K. AGRAWAL, an 

individual, 

v. 

NORMAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, 

a division of the City of 

Norman , and CSC CREDIT 

SERVICES, INC. , 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

-· 

ORDER 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

f!""\r": ~. r, r,~ ·. 

CLE~~ u.r r.·-:-~--;::;: .. . --. . . . . . . 

C~~:-88-1188-T 

Defendant Norman Regional Hospital (NRH) has filed a Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has responded. Plaintiff incorrectly characterizes NRH's motion as contending that NRH is not a 

"creditor" as defined in 15 u.s.c. § 1602(f). In fact, NRH' s 

motion contends that there was no extension of consumer credit as 

required by 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a). 

Plaintiff brought this action against NRH, alleging a violation of the ConsumP-r Credit Protection Act, 15 u.s.c. § 1601, et 

seq. Plaintiff contends that NRH failed to accurately report 

information regarding plaintiff to defendant CSC Credit Services, 

Inc. 15 u.s.c. § 1666a places restrictions on creditors' reporting 

to third parties. The restrictions apply after a creditor has 

received "notice from an obliger as provided in section 1666(a)." 

Section 1666(a) provides for written notice from an obliger to a 

creditor, when the creditor has transmitted a statement of the 

obliger's account "in connection with an extension of consumer 

.. .. . . /!71/1~;/J)/E;VT rr// )J · .. . .. . , ·--; •~ :./.\_:·_:.-;_. •r:.· .· . -~--.··.';••'; :•· .:. __ ... __ . 

I p~ -

..-----------=···""'""'""'""'·" .... 

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 5 
I 

I 

credit." Section 1602(f) defines credit as "the right granted by 

a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt 

and defer its payment." 

\ 

NRH contends that it did not extend credit to plaintiff, 

because it did not agree to allow plaintiff to defer any payment . . ... ._ - .. : 

NRH contends that it sought immediate payment from plaintiff, and 

that any delay was due to plaintiff's unilateral refusal to pay. 

NRH's contention is supported by the following materials: 

(1) plaintiff's Complaint which states that NRH demanded immediate 

payment; (2) the affidavit of John· Meharg, NRH's director of 

business, who states that NRH did not agree to allow plaintiff to 

defer payment for the services in question; (3) copies of statements of account which demand payment in full and show no periodic 

payment amount or percentage rate. Plaintiff's response merely 

states that plaintiff disputes NRH's contentions. The only affidavit or other material submitted in response to the Motion for 

Summary Judgment is plaintiff's affidavit, which does not address 

NRH's contention that plaintiff was not extended credit. 

Local Rule 14(B) provides that a brief in opposition to a 

motion for summary judgment shall begin with a concise statement 

of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue 

exists. The brief is required to refer with particularity to those 

portions of the record upon which the party relies. All material 

facts in the movant's statement shall be deemed admitted for the 

purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the 

statement of the opposing party. Plaintiff has not specifically 

controverted any of NRH' s stated facts. Therefore, they are deemed 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 6 
•· .. -

I 

I 

I 

admitted. Accordingly, the Court finds that there was no extension 

of credit from NRH to plaintiff, because no arrangement was made 

to allow plaintiff to defer payments. 

Meharg's affidavit does state that plaintiff's wife executed 

a Financial Agreement in connection with charges of·~'L 087 referred 

to in paragraph 12 of plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff appears to 

contend that this amounts to an extension of credit. The Court 

disagrees. "Credit is extended when a consumer incurs a debt and ... 

the parties agree to a repayment schedule which allows for the· 

repayment of the debt." Rogers Mortuary. Inc. v. White, 594 P.2d 

351 ·cct. App. N.M. 1979). There is no evidence that the Financial 

Agreement was anything other than an agreement that NRH would 

submit a claim to plaintiff's insurance carrier. The Court finds 

that such an arrangement is not an extension of credit. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendant NRH's Motion for Summary 

Judgment is granted. . 

,A' 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of March, 1990 • 

. -· _ .. -,, 

0L__c.-__ --,,,,. 

EJlliRED IN JUDGEMENT DOCKET ON 

J .. /~ . 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6150 Document: 010110100013 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 7