CLAUDE WILSON GORDON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FORSYTH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the hospital's method of allocating Hill-Burton funds for indigent care did not violate the statute or regulations, and that other allocation methods could also be compliant.
Indigent claimants appealed a district court decision upholding Forsyth Memorial Hospital's allocation policy for Hill-Burton funds. The hospital prio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hill-Burton Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Indigent claimants appeal the judgment of the district court upholding the manner in which Forsyth Memorial Hospital, a recipient of Hill-Burton funds, furnishes services to indigents. Under § 603(e) of the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291c(e), and the regulations thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 53.111(d), a hospital that provides uncompensated services equal to at least three percent of its operating costs presumptively complies with its assurance to provide a reasonable volume of services to indigents. The statute and regulations, however, do not specify how these funds should be allocated.
The appellants contend that the hospital must provide any services that are medically necessary on a “first come, first served” basis until the funds are depleted. The hospital contends that it may allocate the funds on a priority basis: first, to emergency care, and then, if any funds remain, to urgent medical care, and finally, to elective medical care.
The district court ruled that the hospital’s policy did not violate the statute and the regulations.* We affirm this ruling for the reasons stated by the district court. We add, however, that the law does not mandate the hospital’s present method of priority allocation. Other methods, such as that advocated by the appellants, would also comply.
The district court also denied the claims of the individual plaintiffs for free medical care because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300p-2(c). The parties have stipulated that they have exhausted their administrative remedies pending appeal. Accordingly, without objection by the hospital, we remand these claims to the district court.
The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The hospital shall recover its costs.
*
Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 708 (M.D.N.C.1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Callie Mae Newsom v. Vanderbilt Univ., 653 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1981)
-
Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
Rybicki v. Hartley, 792 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence