Opinion
June 20, 1967
Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules which determined that Ada Tucker, deceased, was not medically indigent within the meaning of section 187 of the Social Welfare Law and that respondent was justified in refusing to pay her hospital bill to petitioner. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that Mrs. Tucker, age 45 and a resident of Warren County, was admitted as an emergency case to Albany Medical Center Hospital on March 18, 1965 and died there on March 30, 1965. Neither she nor her husband, Peter Tucker, had been receiving public assistance although he was unemployed, was responsible for $85 per month rent, owed money to a loan company and a bank and owed $120 on a prior hospital bill. In these circumstances, had Mrs. Tucker lived and been released from the hospital, she would have been considered a medically indigent person. The husband, however, was beneficiary of the proceeds of a $1,500 insurance policy on her life. He had made known to the hospital authorities this policy when his wife was admitted to the hospital. It was on the basis of this policy that respondent declined to pay the hospital bill of $1,067.34. The issue before us is whether medical indigency under section 187 it to be determined at the time of the patient's admission to the hospital, as is contended by the petitioner, or at the time the bill is due. Under the common law and section 101 of the Social Welfare Law, the ability of the husband to pay may be considered in determining medical indigency of the wife. Section 187 of the Social Welfare Law, in effect in 1965, provided: "2 * * * (c) If, in case of emergency, a patient is admitted without prior authorization of the public welfare official empowered to approve payment for such care, and the hospital wishes to receive payment from public funds for such patient, the hospital shall, within forty-eight hours of the admission * * * send to such official a report of the facts in the case, including a statement of the physician in attendance as to the necessity of the immediate admission of such patient to the hospital. If the public welfare official responsible for authorizing such care is not known by the hospital, such notice shall be sent to the commissioner of the public welfare district in which the hospital is located, and such commissioner shall be responsible for making an investigtion to discover whether any public welfare district or the state is liable for payment for the care of such patient. The cost of the care of such a patient shall be a charge against the public welfare district only when authorized by the commissioner of public welfare or his agent." In Matter of St. Clare's Hosp. v. Breslin ( 19 A.D.2d 922, 923) we held that, "before exercising his discretion to refuse payment, the Commissioner must find that the hospital bill can be paid in full without protracted delay", by the patient or someone responsible for the patient. We reject the contention of the hospital, that medical indigency must be decided in light of only the facts upon the patient's admission. Such a reading finds no support in the statute, in the case law or in the policies underlying the State's welfare programs. On the record before us, however, there were other debts and expenses including funeral expenses and the husband was unemployed. It is our opinion that the respondent should reconsider all of the relevant facts and make a new finding and redetermination as to the medical indigency of the decedent. Order and judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and determination annulled, with costs to appellant; and matter remitted to respondent Commissioner for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Herlihy, J.P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.