| Opinion: | Accident Care and Treatment Center v. CSAA General Ins. Co., 2021 OK CIV APP 3 |
| Subject matter: | Action to enforce and foreclose a medical services lien. |
| Date Decided: | December 30, 2020 |
| Trial Court: | District Court Oklahoma County (Truong, J.) |
| Route to this Court: | Final Order on Summary Judgment; Assigned to COCA Division II. |
| Facts: | Mr. Hudson was injured in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the negligence of CSAA’s insured. Mr. Hudson was treated at Accident Care and was issued a bill for $2469.47. CSAA sent a letter to Accident Care requesting the amount owed be reduced. CSAA paid $950 to Mr. Hudson to pay Accident Care’s bill, but CSAA did not also list Accident Care as Payee. Accident Care filed a Petition to foreclose its medical services lien. CSAA disputed that the lien was valid because it did not include an itemized statement of the charges. CSAA also argued it had a right to a jury trial on the disputed amount owed. Trial court granted partial summary judgment to Accident Care. (Accident Care dismissed its remaining claim after the partial MSJ was granted, making the order a final, appealable order). |
| Standard of Review: | De Novo. |
| Analysis: | 42 O.S. 2001 § 46(C) was amended in 2018 to no longer require an “itemized” statement due to HIPPA concerns. However, a statement of the claimed amount is still required, making Accident Care’s lien ineffective. However, on remand, the lien can be amended to include the statement. The 2018 amendment applied retroactively. CSAA, if it had the right to do so, could challenge the amount owed, and such a challenge, was a disputed question of fact suitable for a jury. CSAA also, however, bears the burden of pursuing indemnification against the injured patient if Accident Care establishes its debt exceeds the sums CSAA asserts is the amount due. |
| Outcome: | Reversed and Remanded. |
| Vote: | Barnes, J. (author), Rapp, J. specially concur, Fischer, J. |
| Other: | No Petition for Certiorari filed; this case was one of four companion cases on appeal involving the same issue. |
