Reichle v. Hazie

In Reichle v. Hazie (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 543, the Court of Appeal considered the recovery of medical expenses by an indigent plaintiff treated at a county hospital. The record in the case indicated there were "two types" of patients from whom the county was supposed to seek reimbursement--" 'any patient who is admitted fraudulently ... and is able to pay his bill' " and any patient who recovered tort damages for his injuries. (Id. at p. 547.) Thus, when a patient could pay, it was "the duty of the county officials to collect such charges from him." (Ibid.) When, however, a patient was "admitted to a hospital without an express contract to pay for his care and treatment," the law, " 'in the absence of evidence to show gratuitous service, would imply an agreement ... to pay the reasonable value' of the services rendered (Mathes , supra, 179 Cal. 697 ...), subject to the limitations set forth in Goodall v. Brite." (Reichle, at p. 547.) The question of a tort damages recovery by an impecunious patient being "one of first impression," the court could "see no good reason for denying the recovery of special damages where plaintiff was cared for in a public hospital when such recovery would be sustained had he been cared for and treated in a private hospital. Certainly there is just as sound reason in permitting such recovery where the money will go to a public institution to relieve the burden of public taxes as where it will go to a private institution to increase the profits of its stockholders." (Id. at pp. 547-548.)