Manwiller v. Commonwealth

413 A.2d 759, 50 Pa. Commw. 648, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1352
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 23, 1980
DocketAppeal, No. 2895 C.D. 1978
StatusPublished

This text of 413 A.2d 759 (Manwiller v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manwiller v. Commonwealth, 413 A.2d 759, 50 Pa. Commw. 648, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1352 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

The Department of Public Welfare (Department), pursuant to Section 501 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act,1 assessed Nora A. Manwiller with costs for medical care and services rendered to her while a patient at Wernersville State Hospital. [649]*649These costs were calculated on a per diem basis with total institutional costs being divided by total inpatient days.2 Nora A. Manwiller appeals, contending that the calculation of charges on a per diem basis is impermissible under the statute and current Department regulations.

In Department of Public Welfare v. Wieand, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 179, 185, 362 A.2d 1108, 1111 (1976), the assessment of liability for medical services on a per diem basis was upheld.

[P]ursuant to Section 501 of the Act, [50 P.S. §4501] a per diem charge may properly be used to determine the liability of persons subjected thereby to recovery of the public funds expended by public hospitals on their behalf.

Manwiller argues, however, that 55 Pa. Code §5401.1,3 requires that charges for her care and maintenance must be assessed only in accordance with a detailed statement of the particular services rendered, i.e., itemized billing.

Review of this section discloses no such requirement. To the contrary, Section 5401.1 merely “encourages” facilities and agencies “to develop schedules of charges in terms of units of services that will reflect as accurately as possible the actual cost of providing each service.”

In the area of social welfare, the problems of government are practical ones which may justify or even require rough accommodations. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970). Therefore, in the absence of specific regulations requiring itemized or detailed [650]*650billing for services rendered, the calculation of medical costs under Section 501 of the Act on a per diem basis is proper.

Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 23rd day of April, 1980, the order of the Department of Public Welfare assessing costs for medical services rendered since September 1, 1977 to Nora A. Manwiller on a per diem basis is affirmed.

President Judge Bowman did not participate in the decision in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dandridge v. Williams
397 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Commonwealth v. Wieand
362 A.2d 1108 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 A.2d 759, 50 Pa. Commw. 648, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manwiller-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1980.