University Hospitals of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland

276 N.E.2d 273, 28 Ohio Misc. 134, 57 Ohio Op. 2d 208, 1971 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 216
CourtCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
DecidedJuly 22, 1971
DocketNo. 822764
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 276 N.E.2d 273 (University Hospitals of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
University Hospitals of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 276 N.E.2d 273, 28 Ohio Misc. 134, 57 Ohio Op. 2d 208, 1971 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 216 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1971).

Opinion

CajlhotjN, J.,

sitting by assignment. This case has been submitted on the following stipulation of facts:

“The parties to this action hereby agree and stipulate as to the following facts relevant to the issue in this case:
“1. This action was commenced on December 30, 1965, by the plaintiff, a corporation not for profit, and engaged in operating among other units and divisions a general emergency service upon a twenty-four (24) hour per day basis.
“2. The defendant, city of Cleveland, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio, and that as such municipal corporation it operates and maintains a department of public safety in which there is a division of police, among whose duties are the apprehension of and taking into custody persons suspected of crime, and rendering to them such assistance of an emergency nature as the condition of any such person may require.
“3. On December 3, 1963, at approximately 1:50 p. m., one Hollis F. Lowe, an indigent transient male from Atlanta, Georgia, was found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound at East 120th & Beulah Avenue. The Cleveland [136]*136Police Department came in response to a telephoned complaint.
“4. Cleveland Police Department Mobile Patrol No. 692 took said Hollis P. Lowe to the plaintiff hospital where he was admitted to the emergency room.
“5. Said Hollis F. Lowe remained in University Hospitals as an emergency patient from December 3rd, 1963, to December 24th, 1963, at which time he was transferred to Metropolitan General Hospital’s prison ward, where the services rendered to him were paid by Cuyahoga County on-behalf of the City of Cleveland.
“6. During the aforesaid period, emergency hospital services were rendered to said Hollis F. Lowe at the established rates of the plaintiff hospital, the bill for such services being in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-six Dollars and Fifty Cents ($1,326.50).
“7. Subsequent to the discharge of Hollis F. Lowe from plaintiff hospital, a bill was submitted to the city of Cleveland in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-six Dollars and Fifty Cents ($1,326.50), which amount remains unpaid either by the said Hollis F. Lowe, or the defendants, City of Cleveland, or Cuyahoga County.
“8. Subsequent to said Hollis F. Lowe’s release from Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, he was convicted of a crime in Common Pleas Court, he was placed on probation, and returned to the state of Georgia.
“Issue
“Upon the foregoing facts the issue to be submitted to the court without a jury is as follows:
“ ‘Which political subdivision of the state, such as the city of Cleveland or Cuyahoga County, is liable for the necessary hospital and medical care furnished to an indigent and transient person who is found injured and thereupon conveyed by police officers of the municipal corporation to plaintiff hospital.’ ”

Since the county of Cuyahoga is no longer a party to this portion of the case, the issues as submitted by the parties would only involve the liability of the city of Cleveland and should be reduced as follows:

[137]*137“Is the city of Cleveland liable for the necessary hospital and medical care furnished to an indigent and transient person who is found injured and thereupon conveyed by police officers of the municipal corporation to the plaintiff hospital?”

The plaintiff, in its brief, sets forth the issue as follows :

“The issue presented in the Stipulation of Facts submitted to the court has narrowed down to the issue of whether or not the city of Cleveland as a political subdivision of the state is liable for emergency and necessary hospital and medical care furnished to an indigent and transient person who is found injured and suspected of crime, and taken by police officers of the city to plaintiff hospital for treatment.”

In support of its complaint, the plaintiff relies solely upon Ohio Attorney General’s Opinion No. 3131, decided May 7, 1948, 1948 O. A. G. Page 221, the syllabus of which reads as follows:

“1. An indigent person who is injured while being apprehended by peace officers in the perpetration of a felony, is not entitled to receive hospital care while in custody under the provisions of G. C. 3484-2, or any other poor relief provisions of the General Code. 1945 Opinions of Attorney General, Opinion No. 361, page 420, overruled.
“2. The political subdivision of the state, either city or county, which has custody and control of an indigent person, injured while being apprehended by peace officers in the perpetration of a felony, is responsible for necessary hospital care.”

The defendant, in its brief, cites no additional authority and discusses only the above noted Attorney General’s Opinion. This lack of citation is probably due to the fact that Ohio courts have not reported their rulings on questions concerning prisoner care.

The pertinent portion of E. C. 311.20 reads as follows:

“The sheriff shall furnish, at the expense of the county, to all prisoners or other persons confined in the jail, fuel, soap, disinfectants, bed, clothing, washing, and nurs[138]*138ing, when required, and other necessaries as the court, in its rules, designates.” (Emphasis added by the court.)

The pertinent portion of E. C. 753.02 reads as follows:

“The legislative authority of a municipal corporation shall provide by ordinance for sustaining all persons sentenced to or confined in a prison or station house at the expense of the municipal corporation, and in counties where prisons or station houses are in quarters leased from the board of county commissioners, may contract with the board for the care and maintenance of such persons by the sheriff or other person charged with the care and maintenance of county prisoners.”

The legislature has thus clearly stated that the sheriff shall furnish, at the expense of the county, necessities for all the prisoners and other persons confined in his jail. These necessities include medical expenses both in the jail and hospital confinement.

The responsibility for the care of prisoners including those hospitalized would also extend to prisoners who are confined to the sheriff’s jail pursuant to a contract entered into by a municipal corporation and the board of county commissioners under the authority of E. C. 753.02, supra.

E. C. 753.02, supra, also clearly provides that the municipal corporation shall provide for the sustenance of all persons sentenced to or confined in a municipal prison and such sustenance would include medical care and hospitalization where required. Although not specifically set forth in that statute, it is nevertheless obvious, that if a person is arrested by a municipal officer, and not released under bond, such person is a prisoner of the municipality and thus that municipality is responsible for his medical needs, including hospitalization.

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

Related

City of Toledo v. Corr. Comm'n of Nw. Ohio
2017 Ohio 9149 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State v. Golston
584 N.E.2d 1336 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1990)
Mohave County v. City of Kingman
774 P.2d 806 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1989)
Cuyahoga County Hospital v. City of Cleveland
472 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 N.E.2d 273, 28 Ohio Misc. 134, 57 Ohio Op. 2d 208, 1971 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/university-hospitals-of-cleveland-v-city-of-cleveland-ohctcomplcuyaho-1971.