Cheshire Medical Center v. Holbrook
1995 N.H. LEXIS 123, 140 N.H. 187, 663 A.2d 1344 (1995)
Rule of Law:
A husband or wife is not liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by his or her spouse unless the resources of the spouse who received the services are insufficient to satisfy the debt, thereby establishing a doctrine of reciprocal and secondary spousal liability.
Facts:
- In March 1993, Rachel R. Holbrook and Robert W. Holbrook were married and shared a residence.
- Rachel Holbrook received medical services from Cheshire Medical Center.
- Cheshire Medical Center charged Rachel Holbrook $7,080.40 for her treatment.
- Rachel Holbrook was subsequently incarcerated and could not pay the amount due.
- Rachel Holbrook offered to pay Cheshire Medical Center ten dollars each month until her release from prison in 1996, at which time she would make more substantial payments if healthy and working.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheshire Medical Center filed a petition in superior court to attach real property owned by Robert W. Holbrook.
- During a superior court hearing on the matter, Robert W. Holbrook questioned whether the 'doctrine of necessaries' remained the law of New Hampshire.
- The superior court approved a motion by both parties to transfer the issue without ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (an interlocutory transfer).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the common law doctrine of necessaries, which traditionally imposes liability solely on husbands for their wives' necessary medical expenses, violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions due to its gender-based distinction? 2. If so, should the doctrine be abolished or revised, and what is the nature of spousal liability for such expenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, the common law doctrine of necessaries, as traditionally formulated, violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions because its gender-biased assumptions about marital relations and female dependence are anachronistic and do not withstand scrutiny under the compelling interest standard. Therefore, the doctrine should be revised to impose reciprocal and secondary liability upon both spouses for necessary medical expenses. The court first outlined the historical common law doctrine of necessaries, explaining that upon marriage, a woman forfeited her legal existence and property to her husband, who was then obligated to provide her with 'necessaries' such as food, clothing, and medical needs. If the husband failed to provide these, he became legally liable for goods or services provided by third parties. This liability was limited by his reasonable ability to pay. The court then noted that mid-nineteenth-century legislation, such as the married woman's act and subsequent laws, significantly eroded the common law's premise by granting married women the right to retain earnings, own property, and eventually the unrestricted right to contract. Furthermore, RSA 546-A:2 imposes a gender-neutral obligation of spousal support. Applying the New Hampshire Constitution's equal protection clause (Pt. I, Art. 2), which prohibits denial or abridgment of rights based on sex, the court stated that any common law rule distributing benefits or burdens based on gender must be necessary to serve a compelling State interest. Citing Orr v. Orr, the court found no compelling justification for the gender bias inherent in the traditional necessaries doctrine. It concluded that the doctrine, based on outdated assumptions about gender roles, failed to meet the compelling interest standard. Having determined the doctrine was unconstitutional under the State Constitution, the court elected to revise rather than abolish it. It concluded that imposing a reciprocal obligation on both parties is consistent with New Hampshire's gender-neutral support laws. The court expanded the doctrine to apply equally to all married individuals, regardless of gender. Critically, it established a framework of primary and secondary liability: the spouse who receives the necessary services is primarily liable for payment, and the other spouse is secondarily liable, meaning the medical provider must first seek payment from the spouse who received the services before pursuing collection from the other spouse, provided the primary obligor's resources are insufficient.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant judicial update to a long-standing common law doctrine, bringing it into alignment with modern constitutional equal protection principles. By reforming, rather than abolishing, the doctrine of necessaries, the court demonstrated a willingness to adapt common law to contemporary societal values and legal frameworks, particularly regarding gender equality. The establishment of primary and secondary liability provides a practical framework for medical providers and clarifies the financial responsibilities within a marriage, emphasizing individual accountability while maintaining a safety net for essential care. This decision sets a precedent for how courts may address other gender-specific common law rules that may be challenged on constitutional grounds.
