Justice Jaime Tijerina
In a case interpreting the hospital lien statute (Chapter 55, Property Code), the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the hospital filed fraudulent and invalid liens because they were not “admitted” to the hospital and the liens sought to recover excessive charges.
Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc., et al. v. Esther Akindayomi, et al. (No. 13-20-0030-CV) arose from treatment provided to plaintiffs in the hospital’s emergency room for injuries sustained by about three dozen patients from 2013 to 2015 in accidents involving allegedly negligent third parties. Each patient was treated and released from the emergency room, not admitted as in-patients. Under Chapter 55, the hospital filed notices of hospital liens for “the reasonable value” of each claimant’s “hospital services, which were rendered necessary” by the claimant’s injuries. The plaintiffs sued the hospital for filing fraudulent liens pursuant to Chapter 12, CPRC, asserting that the liens did not comply with Chapter 55 because: (1) the plaintiffs were not admitted to the hospital as inpatients and were merely treated in the emergency room; (2) the liens sought more than a reasonable and regular rate for the services provided; and (3) the notices improperly listed the claimant as a “medical center” rather than a “hospital.” The hospital moved for summary judgment that the liens complied with the statute. The trial court denied the hospital summary judgment on the amount of the lien, but granted summary judgment on the misnomer issue. It also ruled that admission as an inpatient was not required under the lien statute. Both sides sought a permissive interlocutory appeal, which the court of appeals granted.
In an opinion by Justice Tijerina, the court of appeals held that: (1) the lien statute’s use of the term “admitted,” amended in 2021 to clarify that “an injured person is considered admitted to a hospital if the individual is allowed access to any department of the hospital for the provision of any treatment, care, or service” (§55.0015, Property Code), includes treatment in the emergency room; (2) the language in the lien regarding the recovery of the reasonable value of the services did not constitute a fraudulent lien because the plain language of §12.002(a), CPRC, requires that a defendant know the lien is fraudulent when filed; (3) the lien’s reference to the plaintiffs’ account numbers, but not the amount of the charges sought, did not imply that the liens sought to recover charges that exceed a reasonable and regular rate; and (4) the misnomer was harmless and the lien notice substantially complied with the statute because it accurately reflected the name of the injured party, the date of the accident, and that the injury was attributed to the negligence of another person. The court rendered judgment in favor of the hospital and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
This case bears out the importance of the 2019 and 2021 amendments to the hospital lien statute, which were aimed at shutting down lawsuits aimed at invalidating hospital liens for emergency room services in cases where a third party’s negligence caused the claimant’s injury. As they did here, plaintiff’s lawyers attempted to bundle claims to put maximum pressure on the hospitals to reduce the lien amounts, thereby increasing the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery (and the attorney’s cut thereof). Fortunately, two courts of appeals—Fort Worth and Corpus Christi—have now ruled that the 2021 amendments to Chapter 55 merely clarified the meaning of the term “admitted,” just as the Legislature stated, defeating claims that the amendments had impermissible retroactive effect.
