Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Robert T. Garwood

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Patrick C. Thomas

Matthew D. Malcolm

Evansville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeff Nelson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Deaconess Hospital, Inc.,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

82A01-1611-CC-2690

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Robert J. Tornatta, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

82D06-1506-CC-3030

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Jeff Nelson appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment against him in favor 

of Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (Deaconess) on its action to collect outstanding 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 6

medical bills. On appeal, Nelson argues that the trial court’s judgment was 

clearly erroneous.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Nelson received emergency medical services at Deaconess on July 20, 2010. 

Nelson had medical coverage through Pekin Insurance (Pekin) at that time, but 

he did not provide his insurance information to Deaconess. Upon his 

admission to the hospital, Nelson signed a Financial Responsibility Form 

(FRF) in which he agreed to be responsible for the costs associated with his 

hospitalization. The FRF also contained the following language:

If you have active insurance coverage, we will bill your insurance 

company. It is the patient’s responsibility to understand his/her 

insurance coverage. You will receive a monthly statement if 

your account has a patient due balance. Payment of deductibles, 

non-covered services and co-payments are the patient’s 

responsibility.

Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 3 at 7. Nelson also signed a Consent for Medical 

Treatment form (Consent), which listed his rights and responsibilities as a 

patient. Among the responsibilities listed was that Nelson would “assure that 

financial obligations are fulfilled as promptly as possible.” Id. at 10.

[4] Following Nelson’s discharge, Deaconess billed him separately for each of the 

four services he received. Because Deaconess had not been provided with 

Nelson’s insurance information, it did not bill Pekin for any portion of those 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 6

expenses. Instead, Deaconess sent Nelson a total of eight invoices (two for 

each service he received), each of which instructed Nelson to check a box if his 

insurance information had changed and indicate such changes on the reverse 

side. All of the invoices listed an insurance balance of zero.

[5] Deaconess received neither payment nor insurance information from Nelson, 

so it forwarded the accounts to its extended billing office, Complete Billing 

Services (CBS). CBS mailed Nelson multiple letters demanding payment on 

Deaconess’s behalf. Nelson received letters from CBS but claims that he

questioned their legitimacy. When a CBS representative contacted Nelson by 

phone, Nelson refused to verify his information. Despite CBS’s repeated 

requests for payment, Nelson did not contact Deaconess to determine whether 

CBS was authorized to act on its behalf. When CBS was unsuccessful in 

collecting payment from Nelson, the accounts were assigned to a collection 

agency, which also mailed letters to Nelson and attempted to telephone him 

regarding the balances due. All collection efforts were unsuccessful.

[6] Deaconess filed its complaint for unpaid medical bills against Nelson on July 

27, 2015. A bench trial was held on October 27, 2016, at the conclusion of 

which the trial court found in Deaconess’s favor and entered judgment against 

Nelson in the amount of $9,250.00. Nelson now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Although the parties did not request special findings and conclusions thereon 

pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A), the trial court sua sponte made limited oral 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 6

findings from the bench. See Nunn Law Office v. Rosenthal, 905 N.E.2d 513, 517-

18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that oral findings and conclusions may suffice 

for the purposes of T.R. 52(A)). Pursuant to T.R. 52(A), we “shall not set aside 

the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given 

to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” 

Further, where, as here, the trial court enters findings sua sponte, “the specific 

findings control only as to the issues they cover, while a general judgment 

standard applies to any issues upon which the court has not made findings.” In 

re Estate of Hannebaum, 999 N.E.2d 972, 973-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A general 

judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence presented 

at trial. Kietzman v. Kietzman, 992 N.E.2d 946, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

[8] Nelson’s appellate arguments are based on evidence unfavorable to the trial 

court’s judgment.1 Specifically, he argues that when he received one of the first 

invoices from Deaconess, he mailed the bill and his insurance information back 

to Deaconess. Nelson claims he received no further correspondence from 

Deaconess, and consequently believed the matter to be resolved. Nelson argues 

that Deaconess was obligated under the terms of the FRF to bill Pekin for the 

services he received, and that Deaconess’s failure to do so within the time 

allotted under his Pekin insurance policy resulted in a loss of insurance 

coverage. In other words, Nelson argues that Deaconess was required to bill 

 

1 We remind Nelson’s counsel of his duty under the appellate rules to recite the facts according to the 

applicable standard of review and to support factual assertions with citation to the record. See Ind. App. R. 

22(C); Ind. App. R. 46(A)(5), (6), (8). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Pekin “[a]s a condition precedent to any financial responsibility” on Nelson’s 

part, and that it breached the contract by failing to do so. Appellant’s Brief at 10. 

[9] Nelson fails to note, however, that a Deaconess representative testified that 

Deaconess never received Nelson’s insurance information, and the trial court 

made no findings on this issue. Thus, the general judgment standard applies to 

this issue, and we are obliged to consider only the evidence favorable to 

Deaconess as the prevailing party and the reasonable inferences flowing 

therefrom. See Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 402 n.5 (Ind. 1991) (noting 

that in reviewing general judgments issued in civil cases tried to the bench, the 

appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of 

witnesses, and considers only the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and 

the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it). 

[10] Nelson agreed in the FRF to be responsible for the costs associated with his 

hospitalization, and the evidence and inferences favorable to the judgment 

establish that Nelson did not provide Deaconess with his insurance information

despite its continued collection efforts. Thus, even if we assume it was solely 

Deaconess’s responsibility under the FRF to see to it that Nelson’s insurer was 

billed for the services Nelson received, Nelson prevented Deaconess from doing 

so. “[T]he common law of contracts excuses performance of one party where 

the other party wrongfully prevents that performance.” Rogier v. Am. Testing & 

Eng’g Corp., 734 N.E.2d 606, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. See also 

Hamlin v. Steward, 622 N.E.2d 535, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that “a 

party may not rely on the failure of a condition precedent to excuse 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1611-CC-2690 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 6

performance where that party’s action or inaction caused the condition to be 

unfulfilled” (quoting Kokomo Veterans, Inc. v. Schick, 439 N.E.2d 639, 645 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1982), trans. denied)). Because Nelson’s failure to provide his 

insurance information made it impossible for Deaconess to bill Pekin, Nelson 

cannot escape liability for his medical bills on that basis. Furthermore, because 

we can affirm the trial court’s judgment fully on this basis, we need not address 

the other specific arguments Nelson raises on appeal.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

[12] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.