NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH ANGRAND AND ANN MARIE ANGRAND, 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.
North Shore Medical Center appealed the dismissal of its suit to collect a hospital bill from the Angrands. The Third District reversed, holding that the patient's receipt of the bill without protest constituted an account stated, and that the wife could be held liable for necessaries provided to her husband.
The court held that Joseph Angrand's receipt of the bills without protest constituted an implicit admission of the account stated, entitling the hospital to judgment. The court also held that Ann Marie Angrand could be held liable for the necessaries provided to her husband, given his inability to pay.
[1] A recipient of hospital services who receives bills for those services and does not protest the necessity or reasonableness of the charges implicitly admits the correctne…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion to amend a complaint to conform to the evidence when the theory of recovery was tried with the implied consent of the parties.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Joseph Angrand himself — the recipient of the services and supplies during his stay at North Shore — testified that he received the bills from the hospital reflecting the amount claimed to be owed and raised no protest to the necessity of the services and supplies or the reasonableness of the charges; thus, the correctness of the account stated was implicitly admitted”
Establishes the basis for the account stated theory and the patient's implicit admission of liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Angrand received hospital services and supplies at North Shore Medical Center. He received bills reflecting the amount owed and did not protest…
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 Necessaries Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final judgment which, after a non-jury trial, dismissed a suit brought by the North Shore Medical Center, Inc. against Joseph and Ann Marie Angrand, husband and wife, to collect an outstanding bill for hospital services and supplies. We direct that judgment instead be entered for the appellant-hospital against the Angrands because (1) Joseph Angrand himself — the recipient of the services and supplies during his stay at North Shore — testified that he received the bills from the hospital reflecting the amount claimed to be owed and raised no protest to the necessity of the services and supplies or the reasonableness of the charges; thus, the correctness of the account stated was implicitly admitted,1 Stephens Lumber Co. v. Cates, 62 Fla. 382, 56 So. 298 (1911); Breezy Bay, Inc. v. Industria Maquiladora Mexicana, S.A., 361 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Antigo Industries, Inc., 297 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); (2) although the hospital’s complaint sought to recover its bill on a quantum meruit theory, the theory of an account stated was tried with the implied consent of the Angrands, see supra note 1, making it error for the trial court to deny the hospital’s motion to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence, Di Teodoro v. Lazy Dolphin Development Co., 418 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Siverling v. Siverling, 447 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); and (3) in light of Joseph Angrand’s admission that he was unable to pay the hospital bill, a judgment against his wife for the necessaries provided to him should also be en tered, Webb v. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, 521 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the hospital against the Angrands.
. Angrand testified that the only reason he did not pay the bill was that he could not afford to:
"Q. While you were at the hospital, did you receive any care there? “A. Yes. "Q. Did you receive a bill at the end of your treatment? “A. Yes. "Q. Did you pay it completely at the end of your treatment? No. "Q. Isn’t it true that the only reason you didn’t pay completely is that you didn’t have the entire amount at the time? "A. I didn’t have the money. "Q. So your answer is, it’s true, you didn’t pay the bill because you didn’t have the money at the time; is that correct? "A. I didn’t have the money. I didn’t have the money, that’s why I didn’t pay. "Q. ... Is the only reason you didn’t pay the bill that you didn’t have the money? “A. Yes.”
PER CURIAM.
The mandate issued in the above-styled cause on August 5, 1988, is hereby withdrawn. The order denying the appellees’ motion for rehearing is vacated, and the motion is granted.
It was called to this court’s attention that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant voluntarily dismissed its action against Marie Angrand which, in turn, effectively dismissed its appeal from the lower court judgment in favor of Mrs. An-grand. Accordingly, that part of the opinion which directs the trial court to enter judgment against Marie Angrand is withdrawn, and the lower court is instead directed to enter judgment against Joseph An-grand only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…reasonableness by counter-offering to pay a lower amount. The patient’s express or implied acceptance of the provider’s estimate gives rise to an enforceable contract to pay the amount of the bill. See also North Shore Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Angrand, 527 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Thus a witness’ testimony that she received a medical bill and either made payment, part payment, or did not challenge it, is testimony concerning offer and acceptance, the words of a contract. Words of a contract, often characte…
-
Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Connor, 643 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…e acknowledge that this court may not have properly dealt with Webb in Rydstrom v. Bayfront Medical Center, 632 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The Third District did cite Webb as controlling precedent in North Shore Medical Center, Inc. v. Angrand, 527 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, this decision was later vacated because the hospital voluntarily dismissed the action while the appeal was pending. . The husband asserted in his brief that the Fifth District decision conflicted with Webb, 521 So. 2d 1…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- DI Teodoro v. Lazy Dolphin Dev. Co., 418 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Stephens Lumber Co. v. Cates, 62 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1911)
- Carrigan v. McNEILL, 521 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Antigo Indus., Inc., 297 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Breezy BAY, Inc. v. Industria Maquiladora Mexicana, 361 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Siverling v. Siverling, 447 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)