Opinion ID: 853001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indiana Hospital Liens and Personal Liability

Text: The Hospital Lien Act affords a hospital the right to impose a lien against any settlement paid to a patient or to cover charges for treatment rendered to a patient. Ind.Code Ann. § 32-8-26-3 (Michie 1995). [2] To perfect the lien, the hospital must file a statement containing the patient's name, dates of treatment, amount of the claim, and the names and addresses of one who is claimed by the patient or the patient's legal representative who will be liable for damages that arise from the injury in the county where the hospital is located. Ind.Code Ann. § 32-8-26-4(a) (Michie 1995). The code further provides: (b) Within ten (10) days from the filing of the statement, the hospital shall send a copy by registered mail, postage prepaid: (1) to each person claimed to be liable because of the illness or injury at the address given in the statement; (2) to the attorney representing the patient if the name of the attorney is known or with reasonable diligence could be discovered by the hospital; and (3) to the department of insurance as notice to insurance companies doing business in Indiana. Ind.Code Ann. § 32-8-26-4(b) (emphasis added). We properly subject a de novo analysis of review to questions of law and owe no deference to the trial court's determinations of such questions. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, 730 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. 2000). An unambiguous statute must be held to mean what it plainly expresses, and its plain and obvious meaning may not be enlarged or restricted. Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870 (Ind.1994). Nothing may be read into the statute that is not within manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself. Id. The underlying purpose of the act is to [e]nsure that hospitals are compensated for their services. National Insurance Association v. Parkview Memorial Hospital, 590 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct. App.1992). Where the settlement is insufficient to pay all interested parties, however, the statute provides that attorney fees will be paid first and the liens must be reduced on a pro rata basis to the extent that will permit the patient to receive twenty percent (20%) of the original settlement proceeds of the settlement amount. Community Hospital v. Carlisle, 648 N.E.2d 363, 365 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). Another purpose of the Hospital Lien Act is to provide notice of the lien to attorneys. Stephens v. Parkview, 745 N.E.2d 262, 266 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). Tankersley contends that an attorney could not be held personally liable for violating the Hospital Lien Statute. He further states that if an attorney is held liable, the hospital lien is inferior to all claims for attorney fees under Ind.Code Ann. § 32-8-26-2, and the patient must receive at least twenty percent (20%) of the settlement under Ind.Code Ann. § 32-8-26-3. Tankersley supports this argument with Carlisle, 648 N.E.2d at 365, in which the Court of Appeals observed that the effort of a claimant's lawyer frequently benefits the hospital. The hospital in Carlisle had argued that it should be paid in full before the lawyer received fees. The Court of Appeals held that the hospital's lien was subject to the share of the attorney's fees. Just as the hospital was wrong in contending that all of its debt got paid first, Tankersley is wrong that a holder of the funds subject to a hospital lien may dispense them without regard to the lien. As Phillips' legal representative, Tankersley was responsible to pay the lien before dispensing any funds to Phillips and himself. Tankersley argues even if he is responsible for a portion of the proceeds, attorneys' fees precede the lien, and Phillips is entitled to at least twenty percent (20%) of the settlement. We will direct the trial court on remand to examine this contention in light of today's decision.