Date Posted: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 3:30 PM CST
Press Release, October 2005
“The granting of class certification status in Oregon is just the
latest win in a string of victories for uninsured plaintiffs around the
country since the litigation moved into state courts. Across the
United States, there have been at least thirteen state court judges who
have denied the hospitals' attempts to have the cases dismissed.
These judicial rulings have directly contradicted the hospitals'
position that their discriminatory billing practices against uninsured
patients cannot be challenged.
Not only have the vast majority of state courts found that uninsured
patients can indeed challenge these unreasonable rates, but they have
also recognized the seriousness of the allegations. One judge in
Illinois found that the "alleged disparate pricing imposed upon
uninsured patients offends 'public policy' and 'can be construed as
immoral, unethical or oppressive' and is 'certainly injurious to
consumers.'" Another judge in Minnesota held that uninsured patients
do not simply have to pay a hospital's "prices no matter how outrageous
they may be.
Other prominent hospital systems have also suffered defeats in the
state courts, including the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, Lakes Region
General Hospital in New Hampshire, St. Elizabeth's Hospital in
Illinois, Washington Regional Medical Center in Arkansas, Saint Mary's
Hospital in Arkansas, Legacy Health System in Oregon, and the Fairview
and Allina Health Systems in Minnesota (mentioned above). Recently,
the first state court judge in Florida denied Homestead Hospital's
motion to have an uninsured patient's case dismissed from state court
in Miami-Dade County.
In one of the largest cases in the country, Sutter Health, encompassing
26 hospitals in California, was also denied its motion to dismiss.
Ruling against the hospital and in favor of uninsured patients, the
Superior Court of California rejected the hospital's argument that
uninsured patients only had recourse with the state or federal
legislature and recognized that uninsured patients can seek relief
directly in the state courts. The Court, in a strongly worded decision,
stated: "The gravamen of the complaint is that Sutter engages in
illegal, unfair, discriminatory and unreasonable pricing practices for
its uninsured patients. . . . It is properly within the exercise of
this court's equitable jurisdiction to hear and determine this case."
Sutter Health subsequently appealed this decision to the California
Court of Appeal and lost.
This litigation on behalf of uninsured Americans began in June 2004 in
federal courts across the nation, where, admittedly, a majority of the
cases were dismissed on procedural and technical grounds involving
legal standing and venue. Since then, the defendant hospitals have
tried to portray to the public that they have “won.” But, as we
can see, the hospitals have clearly been fighting a losing battle in
state courts. We will continue to vigorously fight for the rights of
uninsured patients, and we are confident that we will succeed. In the
end, the only true winning outcome will be for hospitals to be forced
to treat uninsured patients justly and fairly, and with the dignity we
all deserve.”
|
|
