DEITS, J.
Three patients, Chilson, Hartse and Seymour, were treated at Emanuel Hospital (hospital) after being involved in criminal activities. Hospital brought this action against City of Portland (city) and Multnomah County (county) to obtain payment for the medical care given them. The court granted hospital’s motions for partial summary judgment, deciding that hospital had provided emergency medical services to the patients while they were in the custody of law enforcement officers, and denied city’s and county’s motions for summary judgment. It held city liable under ORS 30.795 and cotmty liable under ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150, subject to proof that hospital had made reasonable efforts to collect from the patients and that hospital had given sufficient notice to city and county of the claims against them. In a trial to the court on those two issues, the court held in favor of hospital and entered judgment jointly and severally against city and county for $26,758.14. Defendants now appeal. Hospital cross-appeals, arguing that the court erred when it granted defendants’ motions to strike hospital’s claim for prejudgment interest.
The facts of each case are:
Chilson-.
After responding to a report about a man fighting with his girlfriend, police officers shot Chilson in the shoulder, back, thigh and chest after he threatened them with a handgun. Police accompanied him to the hospital, and continued to guard him for at least two of the six days he was confined there. The trial court found that
“[he] was shot by Portland city police officers while committing criminal misconduct on or about February 20, 1987. Had he not been shot, he would have been impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.
“Chilson was taken into physical custody by Portland city officers and transported to plaintiffs hospital where emergency medical services * * * were provided in the total reasonable amount of $10,212.12. On his release on February 26,1987, Chilson was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
When he was released from the hospital, he was arrested on charges of kidnapping and menacing.
Hartse: On October 18, 1986, a Portland police officer followed an ambulance carrying this “suspect,” who had been wounded in an altercation at a hotel. The officer kept him under observation at the hospital for approximately two hours, until a state trooper relieved him. The trial court found:
“[Hartse was shot during an altercation at a hotel.] Had he not been shot, he would have been impounded in the Multnomah County Jail. Hartse was * * * transported to plaintiffs hospital where emergency medical services were provided in the total reasonable amount of $7,907.17. On his release from the hospital on October 20, 1986, Hartse was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
He was held there to await arraignment and trial on charges relating to criminal conduct at the hotel.
Seymour:
The Portland Fire Bureau responded to a call about “a man fallen down.” They found Seymour, who, having damaged the door lock, found himself locked inside the apartment that he had just burglarized. When he tried to escape by the window, he fell several stories to the ground. Firemen transported him by ambulance to hospital. After an investigation at the scene, a police officer went to hospital. After Seymour had recovered enough to talk, the officer explained to him that he was under arrest and told him that “he was not going to get out until we transferred him to a jail ward.” He was guarded for an unknown period of time. The court found:
“[Seymour] was injured * * * while committing a felonious burglary on or about March 11, 1987, by falling from a tree during the commission of the burglary. After ambulance transfer to plaintiffs hospital, he was guarded by Portland city police officers and taken into their physical custody. And plaintiff rendered emergency medical services in the total reasonable amount of $8,638.85. On his release from another subsequent hospitalization not relevant to this case,
Seymour, sometime after March 12,1987 was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
The court concluded that county and city are liable for the patients’ medical expenses, on the basis of ORS 169.140, ORS 169.150, ORS 169.165 and ORS 30.795.
County first contends it is not liable under ORS 169.140,
3ORS 169.150
or ORS 169.165.
As discussed in
Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County,
110 Or App 206, 823 P2d 421 (1991), those statutes impose liability on a county when the patient is in the custody or constructive custody of the county. Whether a person is in custody is a mixed question of law and fact. To conclude that a person is in custody under ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150, the court must find that the “circumstances imply that the prisoner was confined to assure his ultimate attendance at trial.”
Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County, supra,
110 Or App at 213. Although the facts reveal that in each of these cases the patients were guarded at some time during their hospital stays, the facts do not show when and how they were guarded or whether their physical conditions were such that they could not leave the hospital. Those determinations are necessary for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law whether the patients were in custody for purposes of ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150 and to dispose of the case by summary judgment. The trial court erred in granting hospital’s motion for summary judgment against county.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DEITS, J.
Three patients, Chilson, Hartse and Seymour, were treated at Emanuel Hospital (hospital) after being involved in criminal activities. Hospital brought this action against City of Portland (city) and Multnomah County (county) to obtain payment for the medical care given them. The court granted hospital’s motions for partial summary judgment, deciding that hospital had provided emergency medical services to the patients while they were in the custody of law enforcement officers, and denied city’s and county’s motions for summary judgment. It held city liable under ORS 30.795 and cotmty liable under ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150, subject to proof that hospital had made reasonable efforts to collect from the patients and that hospital had given sufficient notice to city and county of the claims against them. In a trial to the court on those two issues, the court held in favor of hospital and entered judgment jointly and severally against city and county for $26,758.14. Defendants now appeal. Hospital cross-appeals, arguing that the court erred when it granted defendants’ motions to strike hospital’s claim for prejudgment interest.
The facts of each case are:
Chilson-.
After responding to a report about a man fighting with his girlfriend, police officers shot Chilson in the shoulder, back, thigh and chest after he threatened them with a handgun. Police accompanied him to the hospital, and continued to guard him for at least two of the six days he was confined there. The trial court found that
“[he] was shot by Portland city police officers while committing criminal misconduct on or about February 20, 1987. Had he not been shot, he would have been impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.
“Chilson was taken into physical custody by Portland city officers and transported to plaintiffs hospital where emergency medical services * * * were provided in the total reasonable amount of $10,212.12. On his release on February 26,1987, Chilson was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
When he was released from the hospital, he was arrested on charges of kidnapping and menacing.
Hartse: On October 18, 1986, a Portland police officer followed an ambulance carrying this “suspect,” who had been wounded in an altercation at a hotel. The officer kept him under observation at the hospital for approximately two hours, until a state trooper relieved him. The trial court found:
“[Hartse was shot during an altercation at a hotel.] Had he not been shot, he would have been impounded in the Multnomah County Jail. Hartse was * * * transported to plaintiffs hospital where emergency medical services were provided in the total reasonable amount of $7,907.17. On his release from the hospital on October 20, 1986, Hartse was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
He was held there to await arraignment and trial on charges relating to criminal conduct at the hotel.
Seymour:
The Portland Fire Bureau responded to a call about “a man fallen down.” They found Seymour, who, having damaged the door lock, found himself locked inside the apartment that he had just burglarized. When he tried to escape by the window, he fell several stories to the ground. Firemen transported him by ambulance to hospital. After an investigation at the scene, a police officer went to hospital. After Seymour had recovered enough to talk, the officer explained to him that he was under arrest and told him that “he was not going to get out until we transferred him to a jail ward.” He was guarded for an unknown period of time. The court found:
“[Seymour] was injured * * * while committing a felonious burglary on or about March 11, 1987, by falling from a tree during the commission of the burglary. After ambulance transfer to plaintiffs hospital, he was guarded by Portland city police officers and taken into their physical custody. And plaintiff rendered emergency medical services in the total reasonable amount of $8,638.85. On his release from another subsequent hospitalization not relevant to this case,
Seymour, sometime after March 12,1987 was impounded in the Multnomah County Jail.”
The court concluded that county and city are liable for the patients’ medical expenses, on the basis of ORS 169.140, ORS 169.150, ORS 169.165 and ORS 30.795.
County first contends it is not liable under ORS 169.140,
3ORS 169.150
or ORS 169.165.
As discussed in
Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County,
110 Or App 206, 823 P2d 421 (1991), those statutes impose liability on a county when the patient is in the custody or constructive custody of the county. Whether a person is in custody is a mixed question of law and fact. To conclude that a person is in custody under ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150, the court must find that the “circumstances imply that the prisoner was confined to assure his ultimate attendance at trial.”
Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County, supra,
110 Or App at 213. Although the facts reveal that in each of these cases the patients were guarded at some time during their hospital stays, the facts do not show when and how they were guarded or whether their physical conditions were such that they could not leave the hospital. Those determinations are necessary for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law whether the patients were in custody for purposes of ORS 169.140 and ORS 169.150 and to dispose of the case by summary judgment. The trial court erred in granting hospital’s motion for summary judgment against county.
County also contends that the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) applies to this case and argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment on that basis. Even if the act applies to this case, the trial court found that city and county had actual notice within the 180 days required by ORS 30.275(2)(b). That determination is supported by the evidence.
County’s final argument is that the court erred in finding that hospital made reasonable efforts to collect as required by ORS 169.165(3). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to hospital as the prevailing party, there was evidence to support the trial court’s determination.
See Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County, supra,
110 Or App at 213.
City assigns error only to the summary judgment against it insofar as it is based on Hartse’s being in the custody of a Portland police officer when hospital provided medical services to him. For the reasons discussed in connection with county, we remand for a determination of whether Hartse was in custody. City does not seek review of the summary judgment insofar as it held it liable for the medical costs of Chilson and Seymour. Although we held in
Emanuel
Hospital v. Umatilla County, supra,
110 Or App at 213, that ORS 30.795
does not impose independent liability on a city, city does not make that argument here. Therefore, we affirm the judgment against city relating to Chilson and Seymour.
For the reasons stated in the discussion of the judgment against county, we also affirm the trial court’s determination that hospital made reasonable efforts to collect and that, assuming that OTCA is applicable, city had actual notice.
Hospital contends in its cross-appeal that it was entitled to its claim for prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest may not be recovered.
Emanuel Hospital v. Umatilla County, supra,
110 Or App at 214.
On appeal, summary judgment against city as to Hartse reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed; summary judgment against county reversed and remanded; affirmed on cross-appeal.