She alleged also that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is responsible for enforcing obligations and commitments under the Hill-Burton Act. These allegations are sketchy, but they were sufficient to bring the plaintiff within the class of persons entitled to seek free services and to confer standing upon her. Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (CA10, 1972). I. The existence of a private remedy

First, we are satisfied that either a medically indigent individual or a class of such individuals or the representative of such a class has the right to pursue a civil remedy against a hospital in order to compel its compliance with its Hill-Burton obligations. This was the holding of Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (10 Cir. 1972), which based that right upon two separate and independent considerations. It was first that court's view that since the legislative history as well as the express provisions of the Hill-Burton Act make clear that its primary intent was to provide medical indigents with necessary hospital services, the failure of the act to specifically afford such persons a private right of action could not be regarded as indicative of a legislative intent to withhold such a right. Rather, the court concluded, it is consonant with and serves the legislative intent to imply from the act the availability of a civil remedy for those within its protective realm.

In response to a series of lawsuits, see, e.g., Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1972); Cook v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp., 61 F.R.D. 354 (E.D.La. 1972), the Secretary in 1972 began to issue regulations that defined standards for compliance with the assurances. These regulations, among other things, defined a "reasonable volume of services" and "persons unable to pay," and established standards for compliance and initiated various reporting requirements.

Although these forms, in and of themselves, could not constitute a contract because of the indefiniteness of their terms, ASW Club of Waukegan v. Drobnick, 26 Ill.2d 521, 187 N.E.2d 247 (1962); Brewer v. Daubert Chemical Corp., 72 Ill. App.3d 718, 28 Ill.Dec. 911, 391 N.E.2d 110 (1979), plaintiff maintains that the regulations in force at the time its members received Hill-Burton funds were incorporated into the alleged agreement, thus making the obligations contained in the application forms definite and enforceable. In several cases dealing primarily with the issue of implying a private right of action for the indigent third party beneficiaries of the alleged contract, courts have indicated that they accept the existence of a contractual relationship created by the forms; however, none of the holdings have specifically discussed whether the regulations are incorporated into the contract. Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1972); Corum v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 359 F. Supp. 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); AHA v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. 1980) (dissenting opinion). Assuming, for the moment, the validity of these court's findings that a contract exists, it is nevertheless true that since, as is shown below, the Secretary has the power to modify the regulations after the federal funds have been paid, this power was also a part of the terms of any contract that may have arisen.

See Comment, Provision of Free Medical Services by Hill-Burton Hospitals, 8 Harv.C.R.C.L. L.REV. 351, 352 (1973). After — and apparently in response to — a series of lawsuits brought by several private citizens and public interest groups against federally assisted hospitals to enforce compliance with the Hill-Burton obligations, see, e.g., Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1972); Cook v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 61 F.R.D. 354 (E.D.La. 1972), the Secretary began in 1972 to issue regulations which defined standards for compliance with the assurances. These regulations specified what was to be deemed a "reasonable volume of services" in terms of a quantitative presumptive compliance level, defined "persons unable to pay," established standards for compliance with the community service assurance and initiated various reporting requirements to ensure compliance.

There is no doubt that when it can fairly be said that the Congress intended to benefit a particular class in its statutory scheme, a civil remedy will be implied for such beneficiaries. See Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115, 1118 (10 Cir. 1972, per Clark, Associate Justice — also concerning the Hill-Burton Act). The question is, then, are there plaintiffs who, under the Public Health Service Act, may fairly be said to be its beneficiaries?

Having found that the Resolution imposes no such requirement, we similarly reject Curtis' contract arguments. In the district court, and only briefly on appeal, Curtis appears to make a third-party beneficiary argument, largely in reliance on Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1972), claiming that "the request for a bid . . . and specifications, created a contractual obligation on the part of the defendant Board . . . and plaintiff is in the protective realm of the obligation created by such resolution. The plaintiff as the lowest responsible bidder under the bid specifications and procedures is a proper third party beneficiary of the contractual obligations set forth under the bid specifications, requirements, and procedures . . .

The implication of these cases was that in accepting federal construction assistance, Hill-Burton hospitals were assuming the burden of providing a certain amount of uncompensated service to indigents. For example, in Euresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115, 1118-1119 (10th Cir. 1972), the Court said "[n]othing could be clearer: In receiving federal funds, [defendant hospitals] obligated themselves to dispense a reasonable amount of free hospital services to those unable to pay." Similarly, in Cook v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital, supra, 559 F.2d at 972, the Fifth Circuit commented that "[t]he service to indigent patients is a quid pro quo exacted in return for the benefaction received from the taxpayers.

The vast majority of courts answered in the affirmative. See Saine v. Hospital Authority of Hall County, 502 F.2d 1033, 1034-35 (5th Cir. 1974); Buresti v. Stenner, 458 F.2d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1972); Corum v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 359 F. Supp. 909, 914-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) also holding that corporate plaintiffs, neighborhood organizations alleging injury to their members, have standing to enforce the Act); Organized Migrants in Community Action, Inc. v. James Archer Smith Hospital, 325 F. Supp. 268, 271 (S.D.Fla. 1971); Cook v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 319 F. Supp. 603, 606 (E.D.La. 1970). Contra Stanturf v. Sipes, 224 F. Supp. 883, 890 (W.D.Mo. 1963), aff'd, 335 F.2d 224 (8th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 977, 85 S.Ct. 676, 13 L.Ed.2d 567 (1965).

The Director shall consult with the heads of other Federal agencies responsible for programs providing assistance to activities which may be included in community action programs for the purpose of securing maximum consistency between rules or regulations prescribed or followed by those agencies and those prescribed under this section. Second, plaintiff states that she is a beneficiary of the Economic Opportunity Act under the rationale of the decisions in Gomez v. Board of State Employment Services, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 569; Cook v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 319 F. Supp. 603 (E.D.La. 1970); and Euresti v. Stenner, 10 Cir., 1972, 458 F.2d 1115. The plaintiff asserts that as a beneficiary of the Economic Opportunity Act, she could sue a local community action agency in federal court for its failure to accord to her rights provided in the Economic Opportunity Act.