MARION COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN G. TUMAN, SR., 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 Marion County Hospital District appealed an order reducing its assigned claim against a personal injury settlement to $1,500 when the hospital was entitled to the full unpaid balance of $2,473.25 under a valid assignment. The court reversed, holding that the trial court had no legal authority to reduce the hospital's assigned claim based on equitable considerations.
The trial court lacked legal authority to reduce the hospital's assigned claim. The hospital, which was not a party to the settlement negotiations and did nothing to reduce its claim, was entitled to the full $2,473.25 assigned to it under the valid assignment, not the $1,500 allocated by the trial court.
[1] A valid assignment of a claim to a hospital for medical expenses is enforceable against settlement proceeds from a related personal injury action.
[2] A trial court cannot unilaterally reduce the amount owed under a valid assignment of a claim without the consent of the assignee.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Appellant hospital was not a party to the settlement negotiations or agreement between appellee and the insurance company. It did nothing and appellee points to nothing by which its claim under Tuman's assignment can authoritatively be reduced.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the hospital's assigned claim cannot be reduced by parties who are not bound by or did not participate in the settlement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTuman was hospitalized following an automobile accident. His insurance paid $3,285.15 of a $5,758.40 bill, leaving a $2,473.25 balance (stemming from …
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 Assignment Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge;
Appellee was involved in an automobile accident and as a result of his injuries he required hospitalization. He had hospitalization insurance which paid $3,285.15 of a hospital bill in the amount of $5,758.40, leaving unpaid a balance due and owing to the hospital for $2,473.25 for which amount appellee gave an assignment to the hospital of any amounts he might receive from insurance benefits and settlements flowing from the accident giving rise to his hospitalization. Parenthetically, it should be observed that appellee’s hospitalization was sufficient to pay the cost of a double room, but appellee insisted upon a private room and agreed to pay the increased cost thereof and the balance here claimed by the hospital stemmed from such increased cost.
In due course, appellee filed suit in the court below to recover for his injuries, and before the suit came on for trial Mr. Tu-rnan and the defendant’s liability carrier, Canal' Insurance Company, entered into a settlement agreement for $40,000.00. Having notice of the aforementioned assignment and the hospital’s claim thereunder, Canal issued its check payable to both Mr. Turnan and the hospital. Thereupon, Mr. Turnan filed a motion for “equitable distribution”, and upon hearing thereon the lower court entered its order allocating $1,500.00 toward payment of the hospital’s claim for $2,473.25. It is that order of “equitable distribution” that is now here for review.
Appellant contends there is no legal authority to support the trial court’s order for the reason, inter alia, that the court ignored the existence of a valid assignment of Mr. Tuman’s claim up to the amount of the balance due on the hospital bill. We agree and reverse.
Appellant hospital was not a party to the settlement negotiations or agreement between appellee and the insurance company. It did nothing and appellee points to nothing by which its claim under Tuman’s assignment can authoritatively be reduced. As contended by appellant, that authority is not furnished by the ruling in American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida v. Benson, 254 So. 2d 851 (Fla.App.1971), since that case involved a subrogation claim and the case at bar does not.
Accordingly, the judgment or order reviewed herein is reversed.
JOHNSON, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge.