Opinion ID: 901638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Trade Practices Act

Text: [¶ 31.] The circuit courts dismissed this theory, noting that the complaints did not identify the specific section of the Act that was violated and the complaints did not sufficiently plead fraud. Both courts also concluded that the claims under the Act were simply premised on differential pricing. [¶ 32.] Patients' complaints pleaded three types of alleged violations of the Trade Practices Act: (1) that the Hospitals falsely held themselves out to the public as providing cost-effective health care regardless of ability to pay; [10] (2) that Hospitals' discriminatory pricing policies violated the Act; and (3) that Patients believed that Hospitals would make good faith efforts to determine their ability to pay following treatment and Hospitals would not charge those who were unable to pay. [11] We analyze these claims under SDCL 37-24-6, which provides in part: It is a deceptive act or practice for any person to: (1) Knowingly and intentionally act, use, or employ any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promises, or misrepresentation or to conceal, suppress, or omit any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, regardless of whether any person has in fact been mislead, deceived, or damaged thereby. . . . [12] [¶ 33.] Patients correctly point out that SDCL 37-24-6(1) makes these violations actionable regardless of whether any person has in fact been mislead, deceived, or damaged thereby. . . . However, that statute is the criminal proscription. Patients' civil actions are governed by SDCL 37-24-31, which specifically requires a causal connection between the alleged violation and the damages suffered: Any person who claims to have been adversely affected by any act or a practice declared to be unlawful by § 37-24-6 shall be permitted to bring a civil action for the recovery of actual damages suffered as a result of such act or practice. (Emphasis added.) [13] Therefore, to state a claim under SDCL 37-24-31, Patients must have pleaded that their economic damages were proximately caused by one or more of the three alleged violations of the Act.