Opinion ID: 4315208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Common Fund Doctrine

Text: ¶22 Perhaps, recognizing that support for their position cannot be found in the language of the statute, the patients have presented us with a reading of the statute that would incorporate a proportional sharing requirement. They have also tried to invoke a public policy argument in the form of the common fund doctrine 17 as support to bolster their request for a remedy where hospitals pay a proportional share of attorney fees in personal injury litigation cases “when a hospital lien is paid due to the efforts of [an] injured person’s attorney.” However, in the present case, the common fund doctrine is not appropriate. We have not held that the common fund doctrine applies to cases with enforceable liens of a creditor on a judgment awarded to the debtor and the legislature has not incorporated this doctrine into the statute. ____________________________________________________________ 17 Under the common fund doctrine, a litigant who creates, increases, or preserves a fund to which others may have a claim is entitled to attorney fees and costs from that fund. The common fund doctrine allows courts to “award attorney fees in common fund cases to avoid the unjust enrichment of those who benefit from the fund that is created . . . by the litigation and who otherwise would bear none of the litigation costs.” Barker v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 970 P.2d 702, 708 (Utah 1998) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 BRYNER v. CARDON OUTREACH, LLC Opinion of the Court ¶23 Likewise, the patients’ argument that the doctrine would avoid unjust enrichment because the hospitals “otherwise would bear none of the litigation costs” is inapposite. The relationship between a hospital and a patient is generally a contractual one— either expressed through signing the forms upon admission and consenting to treatment or implied through receiving emergency treatment even without signing the forms. See Emergency Physicians Integrated Care v. Salt Lake Cty., 2007 UT 72, ¶ 28, 167 P.3d 1080, 1086 (holding that quantum meruit is an equitable tool that allows hospitals to recover for the services it rendered to patients as a result of being statutorily obligated to treat them under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2000)). ¶24 “The existence of a claim, or right to payment, is at the heart of the debtor-creditor relationship.” Porenta v. Porenta, 2017 UT 78, ¶ 12, 416 P.3d 487. When hospitals have provided medical services to patients in accordance with the law, they are entitled to payment from the patients. This establishes a debtor-creditor relationship between the patients and the hospitals. The Hospital Lien Statute is just one mechanism that hospitals may use to recover the debt owed for treatment—an amount that would be owed regardless of whether a lawsuit against a tortfeasor ensued. To expect a creditor to help pay attorney fees for a lawsuit when they are entitled to collect on the debt owed them—regardless of whether a suit is filed or the outcome—is unrealistic and illogical. Since the relationship between the hospital and the patient is one of creditor and debtor, the hospital is not responsible for recouping the costs of litigating a personal injury claim. The hospital is owed the full amount of its bill regardless of the outcome of the litigation.18 ____________________________________________________________ 18 Hospital lien statutes serve important public policy roles. Hospital lien laws can balance the competing interests of injured patients, hospitals, attorneys, and other parties who may have an interest in proceeds arising out of personal injury claims. First, by affording hospitals direct and prioritized interest in funds collected by personal injury patients, the statute encourages the treatment of accident victims who may have no other means to pay. Second, because the statute grants hospitals a secured interest in those funds, it reduces the amount of litigation that may otherwise have to occur to obtain collection of the healthcare debt. Third, because 12 Cite as: 2018 UT 52 Opinion of the Court