Sheppard Pratt Physicians P A v. Herman Sakwa

Citation: Not availableDocket: 93-CA-00160-SCT

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; January 17, 1993; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Mississippi addressed whether a third-party medical service provider can sue a non-custodial parent for unpaid medical expenses incurred for their minor child. The case involved Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Physicians, P.A. (Sheppard), which provided medical treatment to Stephanie Sakwa, the daughter of divorced parents Herman C. Sakwa and his ex-wife. Sheppard sought $23,765 for medical services rendered between February 19, 1988, and May 31, 1989. The trial court denied Sheppard's motion for summary judgment, ruling that neither Maryland nor Mississippi law allowed third-party providers to directly collect unpaid medical bills from parents. Sakwa's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the appeal by Sheppard.

The court noted that neither party contested the trial court's failure to determine whether Maryland or Mississippi law applied, both claiming support from the laws of both states. The court utilized the "center of gravity" test to assess which state had the most substantial connections to the case, alongside the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 188, which outlines factors to consider when determining applicable law in contractual disputes. The court's decision ultimately reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case involves a quasi-contract claim by Sheppard against Sakwa for medical services provided to Sakwa's minor child, Stephanie. Sheppard argues that Sakwa is liable under an implied contract due to his legal obligation to support his child as outlined in Maryland Family Law § 5-203(b). Sheppard is a Maryland-based professional association, and the medical services were provided while Stephanie resided in Maryland. The court must apply Maryland law, as the state has substantial contacts with the case.

Under Maryland law, parents are jointly responsible for their child's support, which includes medical care. This obligation persists even after divorce. Although Maryland courts have not specifically ruled on a third-party medical provider's ability to claim against a non-custodial parent for medical expenses, the precedent from Kriedo indicates that such claims must be pursued in a court of law, with the liability directed toward the service providers rather than the custodial parent.

The facts establish that Sheppard provided $23,765 worth of medical services to Stephanie, which remains unpaid. The trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment in favor of Sakwa by concluding that Maryland law does not support claims from third-party medical providers. Additionally, applying Mississippi law would yield the same result, as it also imposes a continuing duty on parents to cover their child's medical expenses, regardless of custody arrangements. Therefore, the trial court's ruling was found to be in error.

The trial court's dismissal of Sheppard's claim against Herman Sakwa is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The majority opinion, which holds Sakwa liable for $23,765 owed for his daughter’s medical services, is challenged by Justice McRae in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Roberts. McRae argues that Sakwa was not a party to the contract entered into by his ex-wife, Diane Sakwa, with Sheppard Pratt Physicians, and that he fulfilled his obligations under the divorce decree regarding his daughter's medical care. The dissent emphasizes that Sheppard Pratt failed to prove the reasonableness of the medical expenses and asserts that imposing financial responsibility on a non-custodial parent without their involvement in decision-making is unjust. Furthermore, McRae highlights that Sakwa, residing in Arizona, was not informed of any payment responsibility during his daughter's hospitalization, contradicting the foundation of the majority's ruling. Citing precedents, McRae maintains that one spouse cannot be held liable for the debts incurred by another without explicit consent, supporting the circuit judge's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Sakwa.

The circuit judge ruled that Sheppard Pratt Physicians, P.A. was not entitled to summary judgment on an implied contract theory due to several undisputed facts: 1) A court had previously addressed the child support obligations of defendant Sakwa, who consistently complied with these obligations. 2) Sakwa had no significant connection to either plaintiff. Under the divorce decree, Sakwa was required to provide medical insurance for his daughter and share dental expenses equally with his ex-wife. His insurance covered $10,775 of her medical bills until exhausted, fulfilling his obligations. Furthermore, Sakwa lacked substantial contacts with the physicians' group and was barred from influencing his daughter's treatment decisions, which were solely made by his ex-wife, Diane. Sheppard Pratt failed to demonstrate that the expenses beyond Sakwa's insurance coverage were reasonable and necessary, as required by case law. The dissenting opinion cautioned against a blanket obligation for non-custodial parents to cover medical treatments, which could lead to custodial parent abuse and limit the non-custodial parent's involvement in healthcare decisions. The dissent also highlighted that Sheppard did not provide proof of the necessity of the medical services rendered. On remand, the necessity of the expenses will need to be assessed.