Opinion ID: 1808510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: air ambulance service provided for an indigent patient by sioux valley hospital is within the purview of sdcl 28-13-27 through sdcl 28-13-36, inclusive, and is a proper charge against jones county.

Text: Ante, we know that the County owes a duty to support and provide relief for its poor and indigent residents. SDCL ch. 28-13. This duty includes reimbursing the Hospital for hospitalization ... in any emergency case of an indigent resident. SDCL 28-13-33. We must specifically decide (1) if air ambulance service fits within the statute's meaning of hospitalization and (2) whether it is an obligation which the County owes to the poor. This is a question of first impression in South Dakota. It is well settled that the County's duty to the poor flows not from the common law but from state statutes. See generally State of North Dakota ex rel. Strutz v. Perkins County, 69 S.D. at 273, 9 N.W.2d at 501. [A]ny liability of County for care provided to these indigents must be found in the applicable statutes or not at all. Sioux Valley Hosp. Ass'n v. Davison County, 298 N.W.2d 85, 87 (S.D.1980). Hospital reimbursement for air ambulance charges was disallowed by the circuit court. The court ruled that air transportation was not a part of hospitalization as stated in SDCL 28-13-27. Further, the court observed that if the Legislature had intended `hospitalization' to include ambulance services, it would have [done so]. We reverse the circuit court's decision based upon the following rationale. First, the County does have a duty to relieve the poor. This duty specifically includes hospitalization, medical care and treatment. Jerauld County v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 76 S.D. at 6, 71 N.W.2d at 574. Air ambulance services are part of hospital care and treatment in that the plane is specially equipped with medications, machines, and trained medical personnel; it is, in effect, by its equipment, personnel, and technology, a flying mini-hospital. Second, the Hospital did mention transports in its Statement filed with the Secretary. The County had the opportunity to question this item, but it did not. We recognize that the Secretary of Health did not question or modify this item, even though the Secretary had the power to do so. See Davison County, 298 N.W.2d at 87, holding that the county must reimburse the hospital only for actual costs which appeared on the Statement filed with the Secretary. Thus, our decision in Davison County appears to give the Statement (and costs therein) a role of placing the County on notice and binding the parties as to the cost of a service. In conclusion, we hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction to decide this case and that the air ambulance service furnished to Baby Bryan constituted hospitalization within the meaning of the statutes. This was an emergency case and transport occurred in a specially equipped plane. Without question, the Hospital filed the appropriate Statement (which mentioned transports) with the Secretary of Health, absent any serious objection [2] from the County. We reverse.