ILNews

Judges rule in favor of daughter in payment dispute with nursing facility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who signed a move-in agreement at a skilled nursing facility as a “responsible party/agent” for her mother was able to prove to the Indiana Court of Appeals she should not be liable for money owed by her mother for care while at the facility.

Alexis Hutchison, pro se, appealed a $2,610.87 judgment against her for services rendered to her mother, Martha Farber, while Farber lived at Springhurst Health Campus. Farber was ill with cancer and required a nearly three-month stay at the facility. She died Feb. 21, 2013, while this litigation was pending.

The agreement Hutchinson signed says that the responsible party/agent agrees to pay the facility the full amount of the resident’s income and resources that the responsible party/agent controls or accesses. Hutchinson’s defense at trial focused on the fact she did not have power of attorney or the authority to manger her mother’s funds. The business manager of Springhurst testified that the facility did not have any records that Hutchinson had power of attorney over her mother. Hutchinson’s husband testified that a facility representative told Hutchinson she would not be personally responsible for her mother’s bill when she signed the agreement.

In Alexis Hutchison and Martha Farber, deceased and Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus, 30A01-1307-SC-316, the judges pointed out that Congress has imposed limitations on the concept of a family member being financially responsible for another family member’s care. Some resident-rights advocates claim that third-party guarantee or responsible party provisions are inherently illegal, although some courts have concluded under federal law that third parties can “volunteer” to sign as guarantors of payment to nursing homes.

“It appears Indiana courts have not yet expressly spoken to the legality of the responsible party provisions; although Hutchison urges us to declare that such provisions are unenforceable, we find it unnecessary to reach that issue today,” Judge James Kirsch wrote.

The agreement doesn’t define “responsible party” but says that person agrees to pay the full amount of the resident’s income and resources “that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses.” There is no evidence that Hutchinson ever had authority to “manage, use, control or access” her mother’s income, financial accounts or other resources, as written in the agreement. The trial court erred, so the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Hutchinson.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT