State, University of Cincinnati Hospital v. Cohen
566 N.E.2d 187, 57 Ohio App. 3d 30, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1158 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Minors are liable for the reasonable value of necessaries, such as emergency medical services, furnished to them under a quasi-contractual theory if their parents, who are primarily liable, fail or refuse to pay. A parent's settlement agreement for a liquidated debt does not constitute an accord and satisfaction that discharges a minor's secondary liability unless there is new consideration beyond merely extending payment terms or forgiving interest.
Facts:
- Jennifer Cohen, a seventeen-year-old minor supported by her parents, sustained serious injuries in an automobile collision on September 14, 1985.
- She was transported by helicopter from the accident scene to the University of Cincinnati Hospital for emergency treatment and care.
- Between September 14, 1985, and December 3, 1985, Jennifer accumulated medical charges of $221,274.17 from the hospital.
- Jennifer's mother executed an assignment to the hospital of all rights and benefits under her employer’s hospital insurance plan.
- Jennifer consistently denied liability for the medical services furnished by the hospital.
- Jennifer did not challenge the accuracy or reasonableness of the hospital's charges.
- Jennifer's parents entered into a settlement agreement with the hospital regarding her medical expenses.
- The parents' settlement agreement gave them a one-year grace period to pay on the balance and forgave interest during that period if they made two $50,000 payments within ninety days from the agreement's execution.
Procedural Posture:
- University of Cincinnati Hospital brought an action against Jennifer Cohen and her parents, jointly, after Jennifer reached the age of majority.
- The hospital then moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court, the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital against Jennifer Cohen and her parents for medical services furnished.
- Jennifer Cohen, the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
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 minor's minority absolve her from liability for emergency medical services furnished when her parents are also primarily liable, and does a subsequent settlement agreement between the parents and the hospital, which only provides for a grace period and interest forgiveness on a liquidated debt, act as an accord and satisfaction to discharge the minor's debt?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a minor's minority does not absolve her from liability for emergency medical services, and her parents' settlement agreement did not act as an accord and satisfaction to discharge her debt. Ohio common law holds that a minor's contracts, except for necessaries, are voidable. However, the liability for necessaries, such as medical services, is not based on contract but on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment, imposing an implied contract for their reasonable value. While parents are primarily liable for a minor child's medical care due to their duty to support, if parents fail or refuse to pay for emergency medical care furnished to save the minor’s life, the hospital may then look to the child for payment. Regarding the settlement, a presumption exists that the hospital relied on the parents’ credit, creating primary liability for the parents and secondary liability for Jennifer. A compromise by primarily liable parents for a lesser amount in full satisfaction of an unliquidated claim can discharge the minor's secondary debt. However, Jennifer did not challenge the accuracy or reasonableness of the hospital's charges, making it a liquidated debt. A liquidated debt cannot be compromised by payment of a lesser sum without separate consideration. The parents' agreement did not involve payment of a lesser amount but merely granted a grace period and forgave interest, which is not sufficient separate consideration. Furthermore, there was no evidence of actual performance of the agreement's terms by the parents or intent by the hospital to discharge Jennifer's debt in return for the parents' promise.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'necessaries' doctrine for minors, establishing that even if parents are primarily liable, the minor retains ultimate liability for emergency medical services if the parents fail to pay. It underscores the quasi-contractual basis of this liability, stemming from unjust enrichment, rather than express contract. The decision also reinforces the stringent requirements for an accord and satisfaction to discharge a debt, particularly highlighting the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims and the necessity of new consideration when compromising a liquidated debt. This ruling impacts how healthcare providers can seek payment for emergency care provided to minors and how settlement agreements with parents must be structured to absolve a minor's financial responsibility.
