Hayden v. Medcenter One, Inc.

20120337 Arthur M. Hayden and Joy Lynn
Hayden, as co-conservators and
co-guardians of Todd Lowell Hayden,
and in their individual capacity and
Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert
& Armstrong, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Medcenter One, Inc., Medcenter One
Living Centers, Billings Clinic,
and Sidney Health Center, Defendants
---------------
Medcenter One, Inc., Medcenter One
Living Centers, and Billings Clinic, Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Randall Joseph Bakke
Appellee: Lance Daryl Schreiner
Appellee: Tracy Lynn Vigness Kolb
Appellee: Amy Marie Oster
Appellee: Lawyer not licensed in N.D.
Appellant: Shawn Arlin Grinolds
Term: 12/2012   Argument: 12/03/2012  9:00am
ND cite: 2013 ND 46
NW cite: 828 N.W.2d 775

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1.Whether the trial judge's determination Art Hayden and/or Joy Hayden agreed to be personally liable for the services provided to their adult son, Todd Hayden, by Billings Clinic and Medcenter One, was in error.
2. Whether the trial judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing Art and Joy Hayden's unjust enrichment claim was in error.
3. Whether the trial judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing Art and Joy Hayden's quantum meruit claim was in error.
4. Whether the trial judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing Art and Joy Hayden's equitable estoppel claim was in error.
5. Whether the trial judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing Art and Joy Hayden's and Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert Armstrong's common fund claim was in error.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the district court found Arthur and Joy Lynn Hayden were personally liable for Todd Hayden's medical bills.
II. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' unjust enrichment claim.
III. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' quantum meruit claim.
IV. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' equitable estoppel claim.
V. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' common fund doctrine claim.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the Haydens' failure to invoke and comply with Rule 56(f) precludes any complaint on appeal about discovery.
2. Whether a health care provider that is paid for services it provided a patient/debtor has been unjustly enriched.
3. Whether the Haydens' failure to pay Smith Bakke's attorney fees as they contractually agreed supports quantum meruit against Medcenter One.
4. Whether the Haydens' equitable estoppel claim fails because there is no evidence supporting it and it is contradicted by their pleadings and briefing.
5. Whether a remedy at law precludes equitable relief.
6. Whether the common fund doctrine applies to the parents of a patient/debtor or the parents' attorneys when the patient was a debtor of the health care provider obligated to pay for his medical services regardless whether he had insurance and regardless whether his parents and their attorneys prevailed in a lawsuit against the health insurer.
7. Whether Todd Hayden's parents or Smith Bakke were entitled to be paid under Todd's group health plan when payment was made according to the plan and neither the Haydens nor Smith Bakke has any rights to the plan.
Add Docket 20120337 RSS Add Docket 20120337 RSS

Docket entries:
108/31/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/31/2012
208/31/2012 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 08/31/2012
308/31/2012 TRANSCRIPT DATED 5/07/2012 & C.O.S.
408/31/2012 DISK-Transcript dated 05/07/2012 (e-mailed)
509/06/2012 Received corrected Page 34 for 5/7/12 transcript
609/27/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 1-132)
710/05/2012 Updated Affidavit of Christopher C. Voigt
810/10/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF
910/10/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
1010/10/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1110/10/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
1210/11/2012 Received $83 surcharge for ATB and ATA (Receipt #21540)
1310/12/2012 Received additional $1.50 surcharge for ATA (Receipt #21545)
1410/10/2012 Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD
1510/10/2012 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1611/12/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF (Billings Clinic)
1711/12/2012 E-FILED BRIEF (Billings Clinic)
1811/14/2012 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt#21578)
1911/12/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF
2011/12/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
2111/12/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2211/12/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
2311/14/2012 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #21577)
2411/15/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB (Billings Clinic) from CSD
2511/16/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD.
2611/16/2012 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD.
2712/20/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2811/21/2012 Received $4.50 surcharge for ATA (Receipt #21590)
2911/27/2012 REPLY BRIEF
3011/27/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
3111/28/2012 Recieved 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating
3212/03/2012 APPEARANCES: Randall Bakke; Lance Schreiner; Tracy Vigness Kolb; Amy Oster; Christopher Voigt
3312/03/2012 ARGUED: Randall Bakke; Tracy Vigness Kolb; Christopher Voigt
3412/03/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
3504/04/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3604/04/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
3704/04/2013 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellees
3804/05/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties
3905/01/2013 MANDATE
4005/06/2013 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/23/2014