Opinion ID: 794393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Implied-in-Fact Contracts and Waiver

Text: 71 I also disagree with the majority's view that the hospitals that did not have written contracts with Horizon may be found to have waived their right to payment at the rate mandated by NYPHRM. The majority's premise is that valid, enforceable implied-in-fact contracts existed between Horizon and the plaintiff hospitals that did not have written contracts, see Majority Opinion ante at 587; and it notes that contract rights may be waived, see, e.g., id. at 585 ( waiver of a contract right is the voluntary abandonment or relinquishment of such a right (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added)); id. ( waiver of a contract right must be proved to be intentional (emphasis added)). 72 I disagree with the majority's premise. I do not see in the parties' words or conduct a basis for imputing to Horizon and any of the hospitals that accepted Horizon's rate an intention that Horizon would pay the NYPHRM-mandated rate. 73 Thus, it seems to me that the hospitals' right to payment at the rate mandated by NYPHRM was not a contract right; it was a right conferred by statute. As discussed above, that statute sought to further New York's interest in maintaining the fiscal viability of its hospitals in order to ensure the availability of adequate medical treatment for persons in New York. My view is that the right to be paid at a rate that was statutorily mandated in the interest of public welfare, i.e., for purposes beyond that of merely filling hospital coffers, could not be waived. Indeed, the view that the hospitals that had no written contracts with Horizon may permissibly be found to have waived their rights to the NYPHRM-mandated payment rate if their actions were knowing, voluntary, and intentional would seem to be inconsistent with this panel's unanimous view that the lower-than-NYPHRM-mandated rate actually agreed to in writing by the hospitals that entered into CHAs cannot be enforced. 74 In sum, my view is that all of the plaintiffs' claims based on contracts, express or implied, were properly dismissed. But given the statutory landscape, the court should not have granted summary judgment dismissing their claims for quantum meruit. 75 Claims in quantum meruit in New York are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(1). Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment to the extent that it dismissed plaintiffs' quantum meruit claims and would remand for the adjudication of those claims to the extent that they accrued within the six-year period prior to the commencement of the present action.