Case Name: WELBORN MEMORIAL BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED, Consolidated Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY, Consolidated Appellee (Defendant Below)
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1982-11-15
Citations: 442 N.E.2d 372
Docket Number: No. 1-482A85
Parties: WELBORN MEMORIAL BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED, Consolidated Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY, Consolidated Appellee (Defendant Below).
Judges: RATLIFF, P.J., concurs.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 442
Pages: 372–375

Head Matter:
WELBORN MEMORIAL BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED, Consolidated Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF VANDERBURGH COUNTY, Consolidated Appellee (Defendant Below).
No. 1-482A85.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
Nov. 15, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1982.
Donald J. Fuchs, Merrill, Johnson & Kim-pel, Evansville, for consolidated appellant.
Dennis Brinkmeyer, County Atty., Evansville, for consolidated appellee.

Opinion:
ROBERTSON, Judge.
This is an appeal brought by Welborn Memorial Baptist Hospital (Hospital) seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred by six indigent patients. The Van-derburgh Circuit Court ruled that the County Department of Public Welfare (DPW) has the authority under the Hospital Commitment Act to limit reimbursement to the initial five to seven days of hospitalization.
We reverse.
Six indigent persons were admitted to Welborn Memorial Baptist Hospital on an emergency basis for treatment of either alcoholism, drug addiction, or an emotional disorder. In each case, the DPW paid for only the initial five to seven days of treatment. The DPW has a policy limiting reimbursement for indigent patients suffering from a mental disorder, alcoholism, or drug addiction to only the initial five to seven days of hospitalization. The DPW maintains that its policy is necessary, in order to make the costs of hospital care economically feasible. It also maintains that the Hospital Commitment Act, Ind.Code 12-5-1-1 et seq. (Act) implicitly grants it the authority to establish rules and regulations such as the one in question.
The Hospital argues that the DPW's policy is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Hospital Commitment Act. It asserts that the statutes plainly require the local DPW to pay the total cost of medical care for an indigent suffering from a defect, disease, or deformity. In support of its argument, the Hospital relies on sections two and seven of the Act. Section two gives the local DPW authority to commit an individual to a hospital for treatment. It also provides that:
The determination of all professional matters with respect to the treatment and date of final discharge of said patient from said hospital, shall be made solely by the physician, or physicians, responsible for the treatment of such person.
Section seven provides that:
The necessary costs and expenses which may be incurred upon the commitment of any person to in-patient or out-patient hospital care or dental clinic treatment by the county department of public welfare shall be paid out of the county welfare fund, except as [is] herein otherwise provided.
The language of the Hospital Commitment Act is clear. It sets forth a mandatory obligation on the part of the local DPW to provide full medical treatment for indigents suffering from any disease, defect, or deformity. Although, the DPW's policy may be well intentioned, the legislature simply has not granted the county the discretion or authority to limit reimbursement of hospital expenses incurred by indigents. . The only authority bestowed upon the local DPW is in regard to the eligibility for benefits. See IC 12-5-1-1 and 12-5-1-15. Once that determination has been made, the county is obligated to pay for full medical treatment.
Understandably, it would be an excessive burden on the county to provide medical care for indigents that require prolonged periods of hospitalization. The legislature has provided for such cases. According to the Act, IC 12-5-1-3, if a person requires treatment for a period of time longer than six months, a new commitment shall be furnished, provided such individual remains eligible.
Judgment reversed.
RATLIFF, P.J., concurs.
NEAL, J., dissents with opinion.
. Ind.Code 12-5-1-1 — 12-5-1-17 was repealed by Acts 1981, P.L. 144, 82. For present law, see IC 12-5-6-1 — 12-5-6-11. In this case, the terms of hospitalization of all six individuals were in 1980, prior to the January 1, 1981 effective date of the new statutes. Reference throughout this opinion to the Act refers to the prior Hospital Commitment Act then in effect.
. The language of the new Hospital Commitment Act is equally explicit in this regard. IC 12-5-6-11 clearly states that the county is responsible for emergency medical care given in any hospital to a person who qualifies for assistance.
. For present law see IC 12-5-6-2.
. The new Hospital Commitment Act also provides for such cases. IC 12-5-6-11 provides that the county is responsible for emergency medical care rendered to an indigent, however, the hospital shall transfer the patient to a hospital operated by the health and hospital corporation as soon as the attending physician determines that the patient's medical condition permits such transfer. The county is not responsible for payment of medical costs accrued at a hospital owned or operated by a health ánd hospital corporation.