In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co.
559 S.W.3d 128 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a hospital's negotiated reimbursement rates with private insurance companies and government payers is relevant and discoverable in a dispute over the reasonableness of the hospital's billed charges to an uninsured patient, as such rates are probative of what the hospital is willing to accept as payment for its services.
Facts:
- Carol Roberts was injured in an automobile accident and received emergency medical treatment at North Cypress Medical Center.
- Roberts was an uninsured patient and had no prior contract with North Cypress regarding the price of its services.
- North Cypress billed Roberts its full "chargemaster" or list price, totaling $11,037.35.
- North Cypress filed a hospital lien for the full billed amount against any potential settlement or judgment Roberts might recover from the third party responsible for her injuries.
- Roberts contended that the amount billed by North Cypress was unreasonable.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Roberts sued North Cypress Medical Center in a state trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the hospital's charges were unreasonable and its lien was invalid.
- During discovery, Roberts requested that North Cypress produce its negotiated reimbursement rates with insurance companies and government programs.
- North Cypress objected to the request, and Roberts filed a motion to compel production.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production of the rate information under a protective order.
- North Cypress filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals to vacate the trial court's order.
- The court of appeals (an intermediate appellate court) denied the mandamus petition.
- North Cypress then sought mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a hospital's list of negotiated reimbursement rates with private insurers and government payers fall within the scope of permissible discovery in a lawsuit where an uninsured patient challenges the reasonableness of the hospital's billed charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hecht
Yes. A hospital's list of negotiated reimbursement rates with private insurers and government payers falls within the scope of permissible discovery. The central issue in the underlying case is the reasonableness of North Cypress’s charges, and evidence of what the hospital accepts as payment from other sources, such as insurers and government programs, is highly relevant to determining the reasonable value of its services. Citing its precedent in Haygood v. De Escabedo, the court reasoned that a hospital's full, undiscounted charges are not dispositive of the reasonable value of care, as these 'list prices' are often inflated and bear little relation to what is actually paid. The court held that the reimbursement rates Roberts seeks are not just relevant, but essential for a fair determination of the charges' reasonableness. The court dismissed North Cypress's arguments that the discovery request constituted an improper 'fishing expedition,' finding it was narrowly tailored to the services rendered. While acknowledging the hospital's legitimate interest in the confidentiality of its negotiated rates, the court concluded that a trial court's protective order is the appropriate mechanism to address such concerns, rather than an outright denial of discovery.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts healthcare and personal injury litigation by clarifying that a hospital's secret, negotiated reimbursement rates are discoverable. It reinforces the legal principle that a provider's 'list price' is not presumptively reasonable and provides uninsured patients with a powerful tool to challenge inflated medical bills. By prioritizing relevance and proportionality in discovery over broad claims of confidentiality, the ruling levels the playing field between individual patients and large healthcare providers. The case will likely influence how the 'reasonable value' of medical services is determined and contested in future litigation across the jurisdiction.
