 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System12/11/2001
arty payors or in situations covered by [A.R.S. § 33-931]." A.R.S. § 36-2903.01(J)(4).
Accordingly, the hospitals were entitled to assert medical liens to recover the unpaid balance of their customary charges against plaintiffs' tort recoveries. We affirm.
II. SECTION 20-1072 DOES NOT SHIELD HCSO ENROLLEES
FROM MEDICAL LIENS
Six of the nine plaintiffs also argue that, as enrollees of HCSOs, they are entitled to protection from medical liens under A.R.S. § 20-1072. Section 20-1072 protects HCSO enrollees from liability for any amount the insurer owes the provider or hospital for covered services. See A.R.S. § 20-1072(A)-(C). Another section provides that
o provider or hospital may charge an enrollee of a [HCSO] more than the amount the provider or hospital contracted to charge the enrollee pursuant to the provider's contract or hospital's contract with the [HCSO]. A.R.S. § 20-1072(F).
Finally, under A.R.S. § 20-1072(D), health care providers are prohibited from maintaining a legal action against or otherwise collecting from enrollees except for copayments, the cost of uncovered services, and the cost of services rendered after termination of the provider contract. A.R.S. § 20-1072(D). No mention is made of medical liens. Plaintiffs assert that these recapture liens violate A.R.S. § 20-1072 as to HCSO enrollees. We disagree.
The medical lien statute, A.R.S. § 33-931 is written broadly enough to allow the hospitals to file medical liens against insured patients as well as non-insured patients and against HCSO enrollees as well as AHCCCS enrollees. Plaintiffs ask us to impose an exclusion on the medical lien statute for HCSO enrollees that the legislature did not include. "Whenever possible, we will interpret two apparently conflicting statutes in a way that harmonizes them and gives rational meaning to both." Calik v. Superior Court, 194 Ariz. 188, 191, 979 P.2d 1, 4 (App. 1998) (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 195 Ariz. 496, 990 P.2d 1055 (1999).
Just as a medical lien is not a personal debt, lien enforcement is not the same as billing or collecting from the enrollee. The hospitals are not billing or bringing legal action against the HCSO enrollees, as prohibited by A.R.S. § 20-1072, by asserting recapture liens; they are asserting a statutory lien against the enrollee's tort claim. These are two different actions.
Under this holding, medical liens are allowed under A.R.S. § 33-931 and HCSO enrollees are still protected from personal liability for covered services owed by the insurer. Our interpretation gives full effect to both statutes without harming either. To hold otherwise would result in the nonsensical result that HCSO enrollees are subject to a different application of the medical lien statute than are AHCCCS members or PPO/MCO members. We hold that A.R.S. § 20-1072 does not preclude the hospitals' medical liens against HCSO enrollees.
III. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
Plaintiffs next argue that any reservation of a medical lien in the provider contracts is an unenforceable assignment of plaintiffs' personal injury claims. See Lingel v. Olbin, 198 Ariz. 249, 252, 6, 8 P.3d 1163, 1166 (App. 2000) (assignment of cause of action for personal injuries is void and unenforceable). We disagree.
The legislature, in limited circumstances, may abrogate the rule against assigning tort claims. See Talley v. Indus. Comm'n, 137 Ariz. 343, 346, 670 P.2d 741, 744 (App. 1983). The medical lien statute represents the legislature's abrogation of that rule. The abrogation effected by the medical lien statute serves to ease the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|