The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-05538 ~ ~ l\ . II) ~7 " -Ii Ii '1 " ,. J J " 60 rt) \() to oo'?' ~ S6(J rib f.'M4n:!; : 'It''1/vt/'';'Tf' 1 /. ( . ............,...~ ' HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalntlff . . VI. NO. 14-5538 CIVIL TERM H.E. LUKE LUCAS and - CIVIL ACTION. LAW - RHONDA A. LUCAS, Defendants . . You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court in the above- captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment on Thurlday, Augult 17, 1 iV5 at 1:00 p.m'f In the 2nd Floor Hearing Room of the Old Courthouse, Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BOARD OF ARBITRATION Dated: -.J'" '" { /1.. 11'1 j- f)~!l1/1~1J- Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire, Chalrman Samuel W. Milkesf Esquire Jennifer Deitchman. Esquire COPIES TO: Arthur A. Kuslc, Esquire 4201 Crums Mil Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 H, E. Luke Lucas. Esquire 222 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiff . . . . va. . NO. M-e38 CML TERM . . . H.E. LUKE LUCAS and . CIVIL ACTION. LAW . RHONDA A. LUCAS, . . Defendantt . . You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court In the above. captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment on Monday, June 111I, 1S195 at 1:30 p.m., In the Fourth Aoor Hearlt'lg Room of the New Courthouse, Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BOARD OF ARBITRATION May 15, 1995 ;;[0fh /];J i~ h, 1-- Roger . MorgenthaJ. Esquiril. Chairman Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire Jennifer Deitchman, Esquire COPIES TO: Anhur A Kuslc. Eaqulre 4201 Cruma MW Road Harrlaburg. PA 17112 H. E. Luke Lucas, Csqulre 222 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . PlaIntiff . . . . va. . NO. ,. 5538 CML TERM . . . H.E. LUKE LUCAS and . CML ACTION. LAY! . RHONDA A. LUCAS, . . . . Defendants You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court In the above- captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment on Monday, MIIY 8, 1895 at 1:30 p.m., in the Second Aoor Hearing Room of the Old Court House, Cumberland County, Cariisle. Pennsylvania. BOARD OF ARBITRATlON April 7, 1995 ,-, ofl~ rn ~.JT- Roger M. Morgenthal, quire, Chairman Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire Jennifer Deitchman, esquire COPIES TO: Anhur A Kuslc. Esquire 4201 Crume Mill Road Han1sburg, PA 17112 H. E. Luke Lucas. Esquire 222 Pine Street Harrlsburg, PA 17101 nAil Z3 1/ 00 A1f '95 :I flCE 0' r. ','r/la~;T,\~~ r,!iI4:i.' ,. . i";(J t'1''}Oflr :!. I;.', -: ( r.p~ '4 " . , HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, : IN THE CeJURT Of" COHHON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 94-5538 CIVIL 1994 V. H.E. LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS, : : : : : : : : Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Arthur A. KUS1C. Esquire. do hereby certify that on thIs ...5th. da,'>' of December , 19_94. r p laced in the Un i ted States Mail true and correct caples of . pet 11;j,Qn .f.fl.f.. - --- - - App.ointment. o.L .Arbi.t1'.ators.._. addressed to fol lowing: H. E. "Luke" Lucas, Esquire 222 pine Street Harrisburq, PA 17101 Harrisburg, PA I? 112 (717J 540-5610 Attor-ne,'>' for the Plaintiff Supreme Court 1.0. 07207 >-t,'o. f i, 1',' t [ {{ . ~ ') J '" .... o .... '" 5J ~ I.i -:r , . en ;;-..... . :A~ ., c~._ ! N ~. '" ~ tJ) .... k. ;' '" = .'- -::r en - ~..:: "' >:... ....:..... -t ,. ~1 "-- ~.. ". ::J' l'" (V) '~l t.~_ ".. "" -- - ?(~ ';: ~... "" ....... , HARRISBURG HOSPITAL: Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, HE. LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A LUCAS. Defendants CIVIL ACTION . LAW : NO, 94 5538 CIVIL TERM ANSWER AND NOW comes Defendantsf by and through their attorney, H.E. Luke Lucas, Esquire and respectfully answers the Plaintil1's Complaint as follows: I, Admitted, 2, Admitted. 3, Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas wu admitted to Plaintil1's facility on or about September I6f 1993 through October I. 1993. 4, Admitted in part. Denied in part, Defendants are unable after reasonable investigation to ascertain whether the services provided to Defendant were in fact necessary and in good faith and therefore Defendants deny the same. Strict proofis hereby demanded at trial, 5, Defendants are unable after reasonable investigation to ascertain the truth or falsity of Plaintil1's averment and therefore denies the same, Strict proof is hereby demanded at trial. 6, Plaintil1's averment is a statement oflaw and as such requires no answer, 7, Denied, 8, Denied, It is specifically denied that Defendants owe Plaintiff a debt ofThree Thousand Thirteen Dollars ($3.013.00), Strict proof is hereby demanded at trial. 9, Denied, It is specifically denied that Plaintil1's demand has gone unheeded. Strict proof is hereby demanded at trial, 10, Denied, It is specifically denied that there is a sum cenain due and owilllJ from Defendants to Plaintiff Strict proof is hereby demanded at trial, NEW MATTER Defendants hereby state additionally that: II. Plaintiff and Plaintift's counsel were infonned on numerous occasions that Defendants intended to file under the Hill . Bunon Act, 12, Defendant's infonned Plaintiff that Defendants would supply Plaintiff with a copy of their 1992 tax return, 13, Plaintiff refused, in violation offederallaw, to accept the previous immediate year tax return and prior to Defendants filing their 1993 tax return, insisted on a copy of Defendants 1993 lax return which was impossible to do as it had not yet been filed all to the knowledge of the Plaintiff 14, Because Defendants filed for an extension of filing a return for 1993 until November IS, 1994, no tax return copy was available to Plaintiff IS. Defendants are entitled to the implementation of the Hill. Bunon Act based upon their 1992 income. and cenainly in the aJterna'ive, based upon their income at the time services were delivered, WHEREFOREf Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Coun order the Plaintiff to accept Defendants 1992 tax return for services delivered in 1993, under the Hill . Burton Act, and to order I pre-trial conference, and to order any other relieffor Defendants that this Honorable Court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted: H'~ Attorney for Defendants . I I J :) VERI f'ICAT ION j') I verify that the facts contained In the above pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, Information and belief. understand that the facts herein are verified subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authorities under Crimes Code, 14904. 7 H.E. At tor , L-t" E LUCAS, ESQ. ey for Defendant ,-f " . HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, plaintiff * 1M TUI COURT OW COMMa. PLIAS * CUXBlaLAKD COUKTY, PIKKSYLVAKIA * * CIVIL ACTIO. -LAW * .0. 9. ~ 5538 CIVIL TaRX * * * v. B... LUKI LUCAS and JUlOIIDA A. LUCU, Defendant. ANSWER TO )In MATTIa AND NOW comes plaintiff by and through its attorney Arthur A. Kusic, Esquire and, incorporating herein by reference thereto the averments heretofore set forth in its Complaint, respectfully presents its Answer to New MAtter as follows: 11. Admitted. However, and by way of further answer, plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants have not filed under the Hill-Burton Act despite the passage of at least six months since Defendants stated their intention to file under the Act. 12. Admitted. 13. Defendants s~ate a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. However, should an answer be required, then PLaintiff denies Defendants I allegation and specif ically denies being in violation of federal law. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was willing to forego any legal action until the Defendants filed their 1993 tax return since Defendants did advise Plaintiff that they had filed ~or an extension until August 1994. Thereafter, despite the extension of time, Defendants did not provide a copy of their 1993 tax return to Plaintiff. 14. Neither admitted nor denies since after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge to information . sufficient to warrant a belief as to the veracity of Defendants' allegation and strict proof thereof is therefore demanded. 15. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. However, should an answer be required, then Plaintiff denies Defendants' allegation and avers that the Defendants are not entitled to receive the benefits of the Hill-Burton Act until and unless they provide the proper documentation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays your Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' New MAtter and to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $3,013.00 along with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum and the costs of this proceeding. ARTHUR A. KUSIC, ESQU 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 Supreme Court No. 07207 Attorney for Plaintiff '. HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, Plaintiff v. * IN THB COURT OF COKKON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA * * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * NO. 94-5538 CIVIL TERM * * * H.B. LU.. LUCAS and DOWDA A. LUCAS, Defendant. V E R I r I CAT ION I, HARRY PARK CREDIT & COLLECTIONS , the SUPERVISOR OF of HARRISBURG HOSPITAL verify that the statements made in the ANSWER TO NEW MATTER are true and correct and that I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of HARRISBURG HOSPITAl.. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authority. By; HARRISBURG HOSPITAL T~t/i!;;;: DATE; 11/9/94 ;1 . '. HARRISBURG HOSPITAL : IN THE COURT Vf' COHHVN PLfAS :CUMBERLANOCOUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 94-5538 Civil Term V. : : : : : : : : H.E. LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1. Arthur A. KUSIC. ESQu ire. do hereby cert i f,v that on thIs /"./"'.. b d3.V of Novem er, . 19.94. r placed in the United States Mail true and correct caples of ANSWER TO NEW MATTER withfirst class postage affixed and addressed to following: H. E. Luke Lucas, Esquire 222 Pine Street HArrisburg, PA 17101 ~ 420/ Crums Mill Road r~4~ !_. .._~. Harrisburg, PA /7//2 (7/7J 540-56/0 Attorne,Y for the PlaIntiff Supreme Court 1.0. 07207 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, PlaIntiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. H. E. LUKE LUCAS, and RHONDA A. LUCAS, Defendant s CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 94 5538 CIVIL TERM !'lQIIGJA Le han demandado a usted en 1 a corte. S i uated qui ere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene vlente (20) dias de p1azo al partir presentar una apariencla escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que S1 usted no se defiende, 1a corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notlficacion y por cualquier queja 0 a1ivio que es pedido en 1a peticlon de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos 1mportantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIEtjE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL: Cumberland Co. Lawyer Referral Court Administrator 4th Floor One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 Respectfully submi"ted: ::.;.7"- ART US!' . ESQUIRE 4201 Crums Mill Road Post Office Box 67015 Harr1sburg. PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 SUPREME COURT NO. 07207 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Dated: :~~ -~.':'"-"":, . ~ .~~;'~" ",,-: '~'" '. a; - :c l>- ll> <;;) >-,.. .r; ,_ ...... " j- ",..\ '_d, '-' " \~. 01", -:r ......, ~ .~. f. ~ ';.J I I I I L . , ' HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. H. E. LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. vir j)j 8' (J{~)-iLJ€~ NQnC:E You have been sued in court. I f you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the followIng pagesf you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are servedf by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writIng with the court your defenses or objectlons to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do SOf the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the ComplaInt for any other claim or relief reQuested by the P 1 a i nt iff, You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONEf GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAt. GET LEGAL HELP. Dauphin County Lawyer Referral 213 N Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (i17) 232-7536 Respectfully submltted: ~ ARTHUR ; US, ESQUIRE 4201 Crums Mill Road Post Office Boo 67015 Harrisb,Jrg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 SUPREME COURT NO. 07207 ATTORNEY FOR PLAIIITIFF Dated: tJ_.Jf.,,9'" I HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA P1alntiff V. H. E, LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. !'lQTIcIA Le han demandado a usted en 1a corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demand as expuestas en 1as paginas siguientes, usted tiene v1ente (20) dias de p1azo a1 partir presentar una apar i enc i a eser ita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archi var en 1 a corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demand as en contra de su persona, Sea avisado Que Sl usted no se defiendef la corte tomara medidas y puade entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notlflcacion y por cualquier Queja 0 a1ivio que as pedido ell la petic10n de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos lmportantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIE~jE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIEtjE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIOf VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ADAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL: Dauphin County Lawyer Referral 213 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 11101 (111) 232-1536 Respectfully subml~ted: ~/?~ / // _/:.--:0 ."/ VA usic: ESQUIRE 42 Crums MIll Road Post Office Box 67015 Harrlsburg, PA 17112 (711) 540-5610 SUPREME COURT NO. 07207 ATTORNEy FOR PLAINTIFF Dated: 9-,p.~-Qtl " HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, plaintiff IK THE COURT or COMKON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUKTY, PENNSYLVAIIIA V. I I I I I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW H.E. LUll LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS, Defendant. NO. COM P L A I N T AND NOW comes Plaintiff by and through its attorney, Arthur A. Kusic, Esquire, and respectfully represents the following: 1. plaintiff, HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, is a hospital facility organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania located at South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin COlmty, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants, H.E. LUKE LUCAS and RHONDA A. LUCAS, are adult married individuals residing at 8-B Richland Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about September 16 , 1993 through October 1, 1993, Defendant, Rhonda A. Lucas was admitted to Plaintiff's facility for treatment. 4. Plaintiff in good faith provided the necessary medical services to Defendant, Rhonda A. Lucas and thereafter billed the Defendants for those services and expenses incurred. As evidence whereof, copies of the billing for services rendered to the Defendant, Rhonda A. Lucas are attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A". . . 5. plaintiff's charges to the Defendants for services rendered to Defendant, Rhonda A. Lucas are its usual and ~ustomary charges. 6. Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 4102, Defendant, H.E. Luke Lucas is liable for the necessary services rendered to his wife by the Plaintiff. 7. Should the Defendants not be held liable for the necessary medical services provided to the Defendant, Rhonda A. Lucas, they would be unjustly enriched and the plaintiff unjustly impoverished. 8. The Defendants are indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of Three Thousand and Thirteen and 00/100 ($3,013.00) Dollars. 9. Demand has been made upon Defendants for prompt payment amount due, which demand has gone unheeded. 10. Plaintiff avers that the amount due and owing does not exceed the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays your Honorable Court to enter Judgment in its favor and against Defendants in the amount of $3,013.00 along with interest at the rate of 6' per annum and the costs of this proceeding. Art r -' us c, Esquire 4201 Crums Mil oad Post Office Box 11585 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 540-5610 supreme Court No. 07207 Attorney for the Plaintiff DATED: 9-~1,. '1"; I ,I ! I j j HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, Plaintiff IX THB COURT OW CONNOX .LaA8 CUUDLUD COUll'1'Y, ....SYLVUIA . . . I I I I V. CIVIL ACTIOX - LAW .0. H.E. LUXB LUCAS and RHOXDA A. LUCAS, Defendant. V B R I . I CAT lOX I, HARRY PARK , the SUPERVISOR. CREDIT 6 COLLECTION of HARRISBURG HOSPITAL verify that the statements made in the COMPLAINT are true and correct and that I am authorized to make thie Verification on behalf of HARRISBURG HOSPITAL. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authority. HARRISBURG HOSPITAL By: _!~~ -k ~~~UPERVIS0R DATE: 8/11/94 '- " RXHIHI'T ftA" ~~ :---r-:- . , u o ';' -~ ~ '--. o , o '- I " I ,j i I , I I I , , I , J , :1 , FCAt.4"'2~ r~' --~-.--.- ..,.... r--."--'-"-.-'. ....-.-. : T'f"E OF fi;....' ih...A..a OA,e r"r--""'-'-'-- ut-._ .... r ..----..~.--...._--.. , DrSCIf . 05 03 94 . i OUTP. ~-_..._-~-.,...- GARIWIS .~~~} ,.._,}.:,_'J 9,,,>.)'1,0 ilE.:lCC 00'00 05'03 ....r4."-- I Be...e:;:cT5 Asa':;, , :~9\.o5U,t.,CE CO\IiA.A.Ue I -.)F!OI,,;P I'oC r---------,---.n'._t pC,-C!""':: Y!3 '0 i yES i _0 yiS i _0 I i 'c I I 5 -I . LUKE LUCAS , , , 301 CHESTNUT ST 1603 , HARRISBRG PA 17101 0 L I HARRISBURG HOSPITAL HARRISBURG, PA, 17101 717 - 782-3680 .--J I.R.S. 23-Ot175-330N I PA1'1Ei'fT )AD COVERAGe i AMOVhT I Cd CHAFlGI 162609799 LUCAS RHONDA A OATi I' ~eSCR'Pr'O"" SOCIAL SECURITY NO. - 182-56-06HJ BI~TH fATE - 11/25/64 I SEX - t I ~ITAt STATUS - H I RACE - B .1 ATtENDtNG DOCTOR - 95011 KONSOU, ROY E, DR~ CO.E - 380 ~ DIAGNO$IS - P 632. PRqCED,RE - P 89.26 PRINCIiAL PROCEDURE OATE - 09/1 /93 PRlNCI AL SURGEON - 95011 HONSO ROY E ADMINI TRATION CLASS - 2-URGEN~ DISCmGE STATUS - TSPR - ICf .J. : POlICY HOLDER EMPLOYER - SELf-E~LOYE~ PO~ICY HOLDER - NOT ENTERED. I ' GR~CE ~AYS - 0 I: COVERE~ DAYS - 000 ; TR~ATH~NT AUTHORITY - : APPROV,D fROH - , AP~ROV'D THRU - , INSURA$CE COVERAGE ' CO. $AHE - NOT ENTERED. : GR I I I I I I 'Sf COVERAGE aNO COVIRAGE 35202L /997 , NE. POLl Y NO.: - T ENTERE , P NO,,- IF i..A'"'E C"'.AR3E9 FOR 8El:lVICeS ""CE"" OCCO", you ww.. TOTALS ~ 'I ~CE,vE ;..::QIT,ONAl., Biu.;N3 See Reverse Side If You Have Not Furnished Us Your Health Insurance Information and/or Forms .717 _ -: .76L368Q , 1:'~::;;99 l LUCAS. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: o<.E:= ."'5 :lOR'"':'" =::;; .:-_:; :;;:::::;:;:5 -::E--'.\::::~ 1-...:5 =E-'"'-::,Q", ';:,,'5 :I::::~C';;"li '"'.. =~"';\'E"''; - - - - - :I.. - =..... '.1..".;: I =]~ ~G:~~i---=-=~?Y:~~-9~_J':i~;:-:~-;"---;:~C-- ~_,.~~~~ ~;;-~~_E'--~ RHONDA A 05 03 94 09 16 93 1 5 925.00 ___~~_---o------- ._---------< ,..._2_~";::6FlCiE~A'rE j . A.lJO..;"- ~A::: i 1 09 ' 1693 I. I HARRISBURG HOSPITAL r=---------.-.- ..-.---~_.. -.. -.-...' --..-..---- I f"v'Oe OF i<~~, a,I...J..3 DA"i 8';.;.,~Q O:E"*iC;) r'D! Sc:j' ,- bs'Tor-94 "'bO'lJO' ., 05 'b3 I~~!P, ,l.. ..., "-,-~,_.,--. I BE""E~,~8 A.SQO ,t>;s"RAl'iCE CO"l~aE QFlQl.,ll' 'lie ".-....-. -..., ---~- ~'--'-"- ----..--..-.-- I vES ' """0 i 'fEt ~o I ! vES ""0; I I F C i ~-;--1 , I 5 i' , I . L_~I T o LUKE LUCAS 222 PINE ST HARRISBURG PA L o.IT. 4346909 LUCAS RHONDA A DUCR~I1TiO"" 09,16 09 :16 09,16 09: 16 09' 16 09: 16 09' 16 09: 16 09: 16 09, 16 09: 16 09' 16 09: 16 09' 16 , 09,16 09: 16 09,16 09: 17 TotAL BASIC SURG SUP-MINOR GYN 1ST 1/2 HR 2 GYN ADDL 1/2 HR 2 BASIC PACK DRESSING HINOR OR AIR SHIELD CANLA H-3 AIR SHIELD TUBNG M-3 RECOVERY ROOM ANES BASIC HONT II ANES PEIlS B ANESTHESIA SUP/EQT DUO THERH PAD ANESTHETIC AGENT TEMP DOTS MODESS STERILE POST PROC RECOV N9 !02-RECOVERY ROOM TISSUE MICRO GRP II I CHARGES GAR MAN S '.G' 1 n_'-'_ .. oC..C't ~c - ' -', , , 17101 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL HARRISBURGf PA, 17101 717 - 782-3680 .-J !"QOt,I '0 ! ll/~~~ I.R.S.2tGe7ll.330N ! 109,16,9~j,10,01.~?]J I m",~ i ~~!~1.~4. ~ COVi~11 2f'ic;. c~-I,lU.ai t' )AD CCN~QIt- ~- j 01 102 SO I, ' , 102 SO I 01 436 SO i' . I ' 436' SO ! 01 i 269: SO i 'I 'I ' 2~9: SO I 01 i 2S: SO i 25: SO l 01 , 6' SO I 6' SO 01 ! 11, 00 I' 11: 00 01 I 13' 00 13' 00 04 231: 00 I 231: 00 30 59' SO I 59: SO 30, 188, 00 188, 00 31 I 347: 00 347: 00 31 ' n 00 33< 00 31 35, 00 I 35: 00 31 I; SO ~ SO 73 i 10: SO I 10; SO 81 'I 145: 00 , 145' 00 92 I S7< 00 I 57: 00 10 I 113: 00 I 113: 00 ~-----~..- -----~-- -----~-- -----~-- -----~-- L.~~~~~~~ , , I ........ , 2088: 00 ........ ........ , , ........ I I +--~ TOTALS ~ _.,.' ,__.-'-~._._L,_, ,._, See Reverse Side If You Have Not Furnished Us Your Health Insurance Information and/or Forms I;: :"A"E C'"lAFtG5S'OR SE~ICES l:l;:~CE;:!EO QCCWA;, vov w,u. "ECE,vE ACOiT.Ql'>4Al,. B'~~Q 7J] _ -: .782-_39SQ o<.E;~ .....5 =O~..::.. ~:;::; <>..::1. =E::Cl::~ ~~.~.. .l"~ 1:;;:- =... ....5 ;1'"'0;;" '"'... ' ...... p......e. ~ ' "'~~~~~09 I LUCAS. R:~~'~~~::- - - - r-0;"'.~'~~"~4' A~:"O:~"~;E MAKE CHECKS ..~ E:-~.J' ~"'. PAYABLE TO: HARRISBURG HOSPITAL 10 (j! 9}, FORM .2S4A .~n"...~ 0\.,; ) I 2088.od ., ':l,IO:'NT 'A.~n' - -1 ... .'''''] ~ c 5 ~ ~ - . o ::,:::-- L o , , o -- o .. - --.- - - - , l1040 label (Soo 1Nl1\A;\oons ""_'2) U.. IN IAI Iabol Othotwl.., plMM ptlt\t 01 type. Prlll..rillll . EllctlO8 ClmpllgA ~ 12 , I I I 4 . . Filing Stitus ISH page 12,7 C,*k only one llOJl, Exemptions (See _ 13,) If more than aix dependenl', ... page '4, '"come A_ Copy II of your Fannl w.z, W.2Gf and loee,A hen. ~ you did nol gel . W-2, see _10, II you lie attachJng . cneck or money 0Ide<. pul II on lop of ooy . Form. W,2. W-2Q, or 1099-A. Adjustments to Income ISH pege 20.) L A I . L H . A I oA$ UN c..,-oo IIQII .... CII' .... 1ft .. ... ,1993,""""'9 no - I ,1' OtoolaNo 1~7. v....___ "III: ta.:3~/~ .......'.- -"Y- /~#Sb ()fp Ii> I'or PrlY~ Act and PlpetWCM1l Reduction Act Nolloef _ peel 4. Y.. No _ C/fedlltft .,.... "'n<<_""" ,.. OtIN.U fOUl -, ~. J/f. 00 you wlI\llJ 10 go 10 Ihis1und1. . . , "I nt mum, does iJPOUM wlnt 13 to 10 \hll 1und1 , I Single IolI1ried tIIlng jOint retum (evon H onlY ono had Ineome) _ NWig _"IIIIMI, Enter lpClM's _ NCurtly no. _ and IuI ,..". '*', . Heed 01 _aeIloId (with queUfytng _), ISH pege 13,) IIIhI qUlll1ylng _Ie . chIl<l but not your dopendenl, IIller \hit child's nome het1I, . au," wklo wllh I child died .. 1 i YDUIHIf. ~ your peroni (01 oom--.. ....) con claim you II . ~ideo,t "" his 01 her \&I l1\um, do not thedl boo eo, But be .... to <heCk IhI boo on line 33b on pogo 2 b c Dependenll: 11'.......(fiBt, ....1, ""'.11......' 7 a- b I 10 II 12 13 I. 15 Ia- n. 18 11 20 21. 22 23 2ea b 25 Ie 27 28 21 30 ~usted 31 Groll Income . .. ON d II,.." tIl:Id dKlnllM W1t/I,.., bull ctauntd as your ilIpcndlnr unclI' I pts-I9B5OV_I, chIdll1ll1 .. 0 . Total number of ,xempuonl claimed . . . . . . . . . . . _ W..... ..'eries. lips. .Ic, AllICh Form(s) W.2 Touble inl.,..1 income (see p.ge 16), Anech Schedule B ~ 0.... $400 . T.....emplin'....II_ pege 17), DON'T incIudt on line eo 8b 0Mdend Income. Anech Schedule B ~ over 5400 Tu.I~ r.fund', credits, or OHI.tl of Itate and local income we (see page 17) Alimony received BUSioess Income 01 (loss), Anach Schedule C 01 C,EZ c.prtll gain 01 (10..), Allach Schedule 0 Copoll1 gain dlslribullonl nol ,~ed on line 13 Is" pege 17) O1het gain. 01 Posses), Allach Form .'9' , .,......,.., TollllRA dlSlrobullOlls. l.!!!.1 U b TIUbl.ll11OUnI 1_ pogo 18) Totol pell$lDl1l snd snnUlt~1 l..!!!J U b T&Qbie omountl_ pogo 18) Rental reallSt.ta, roy.tI.lS, partnenhtpl. S corporations. tnJIlI. ele, Anach Schedule E Form lflCorne 01 (1oss), Aneth Schedule F Unemploymenl compensallOll (see page 19' ' Socill sxunly benefilS I 21. I I I b T...ble smounl (_ pogo Ii) O1hor lflCome, llStlype and Itnoonl-see page 20 .................................... Add the amounts in the 'a' ri ht c~umn for hn.s 7 Ih, h 22. This is totallncome ... Your IRA deduclion (see plge 20) 2ea Spouse's IRA deduction lsee page 20) , 24b One'ho~ of lIIt-employmenl ... (s.. page 21) ,,, Se~-empioYed health InsUlonce deduction (_ pege 22) 21 Keogh ,ell_1 pion .nd ,,~'empIoyed SEP deduction 27 PeneIIy on NI1'( wllhdrewlI "' ""'ngs; .. 28 Alrnony pPl, AtcIll'lf1I'S SSN.. _ 21 Add lines 2.. h 29. Thesa .'e lobi ed us_ . Subtract line 30 from kne 23. This tI your edlutted grOM 6ncome. If thlJ .,-noun' II _$I than S23.1)5() end . child tved *'th you. see {>>ge flC. r to find out d ;ou can dIIm fM -Em.d 1nc0"/1ll o.c.r. on" 56 . . ' . . . . . . . .. c.t. No 11 J208 -- ... ."'" .1 I'" 13 .....- =.... ~ .., .. ,.. -... - J . .......,.. ....L.- . _, 11'II" ....II -" .......... (OIl _'I' o.,e- . .. ---- MIl_ -. ..... ..'" . I 10 11 12 13 14 15 lib 17b ~I 30 .-D'" 31 1117 F""" 1040 I1l1931 Paid ..P' · .. lIgN1urt , Pre parer's Fwm'. nome (CO',.... .. USe Onl~ ~~ end , ~llWI)(1m ~ .. Tax Compu. tatlon (SM_. 23.)' . ~youwant the IRS 10 figure your tax._ ~2., , Credits ~- Other Taxes Payments Anach . FllrrnIW-2. W.2G. and 1099-R on the ~ont. Refund or Amount You OWl Sign Here Keep. copy of Ihts return 101 your ,.con;". I'ago 2 OSlind .~ .3311 , U _I ~om I.... 31 'ad""'od 11'''' n:orne) , , , , " , ~ -'0-. rl: '0 You ;... 15 Of _, 0 lllIncl; 0 ......... w.. Il:l or -, Add lhe number 01 bo... ,_koll __I end ",lor lhe ''''~ here, ' .\ . ~ II 'toUr par"" (01 oom<oone 01..1 <an ,101m y6u .. . ~I. Cneok '*. o. II ~ ore marn.d Along _'loIy and your _ "orn'", deducl""'" 01 you ore . _-II,'uI .'..., _ pa~ 24 and ohoGlIlltrO, . , , " . 330 IWmlllOd dIOduoUono Irom Sohedu.. A. Iino 28, OR .--..., _ucuon Ihown below for YfYoK "ling 11011>1, IIulIl yOu _lid "'y boa on line ~ 01 ~. go to page 24 to And your lland"''' deduct""', II you ~td bQa 330, your ltoncllVd deduction" loro, . . Slngl~,I00 I HNdol~~,.5O ,.,. . M_ nting )cln.,., Of OuIJlfylng widow(or)-$f.200 . _ filing _otlty-43.100 SublrlCllInI~~omlin032 , . , , , . . . , ,. . . . , .' II II Ilno 32 II $81,350 01 ...., mulUply $2,350 by lhe totol number oIl.omptlonl ~ on line 80, ~ llno 32 II ovor $81,350. _lhe _ on ~ 25 100lhe JItTlOUnllo onlor , Taxablo _. SublrlCl fino 36 ~om llno 35, ~ IIno 36 10 ".". lhln line 35. onlor -0- , Tax, Chock II from .0 Till Tlblo. ~ 0 TIA Rot. SGhodu,", 00 SeNdu.. D Till WOI1l' _I, Of dO Form 8615 (_ page 25), _I ~om F~I) 861.. . I AddlllonAltull (_ pago 25), Chock W ~om . 0 Form 4910 b 0 Form .912 Md II... 3ll and 39. , , . , , , . , , , ., ..., Crodil for oMllnd dopondonl WI .,_, AtIICh F'lflll 2..1 41 CrlMllI 101 lhe l!delty 01 IhO "I..bled, Anoch SGhodu.. fl ., 42 Foreign lax crollll, Anocn Form 1118 .. . , , . .' 43 01'* crodlll'(_ ~ ~e)~ Choc'k'~lr!>m ..0 Fonn'3llOO b 0 Fonn 8396 0 0 Form 8801 d 0 Fonn (1pICIIyl_ 44 45 Add IIn.. .llhrougll 44 . . . , . . . . . . , 45 SublrlCl lin. 45 from .no 4n, ~ line .5 I. morl than ino .0. onler .(). . 41 SolI-ompIoymonl tax, AnlCh Schodulo SE, AJao. _ hno 25. . . . 48 All.maUve minimum lax, Anach Form 8251 . , . . , , . . . . , , , . 41 Rocepture lI..s (_ pogo 261 Chock W ~om I 0 Form 4255 ~ 0 Form 8611 . 0 Form 8828 80 Soc;laIlICunIy end Mldoeotl Illll.. lip ,ncome not repor1ld to omployt<, Atta<;/1 Fonn .131 11 Tax on qualified r.tirement plans, inCluding IAAs. t1 required, Ittach Form 5329 . 52 Advonco _ income cfedll paym.nll ~om Form W-2 Il3 Add II... 48 thr h 52 Th.. 's our 10LlI !.II , . , . , M Fldorollnc:ome WI wltllheld ","y ~ !rom FOIm(s) 1099, cl1odt. 0 III 111113 lIIimllld "'" payments and amount appUed Itom 1992 "'urn . III Eomld Income .rlOdlt. Anach Schedule EIC . . . . . , '111 Amounl paid wilh Form 4868 (exten.... roquat) , . . . 580 uuss sociil...,unly, lAed<UII, and RRTA laX wllhht~ (see P'O' 281 . b 0011fTli of Idd~ionef 1993 wes An"", Form 8841 . , , . 51 Other payment. (_ pogo 281 Check W horn I 0 Form 2439 ~ 0 Form 4136. . . . . . ' . . . . . .. 51 80 Md hnol S. Ihr h 59. The.. 1m OlJr 10LlI Is . . . , 11 W... 60" mortI INn line 53, S<lblract line 53lrom inl60, This" the amount you OVERPAID, 52 Amounl 01 line 61 you want REFUNDED TO YOU. . . , . , , . , , , 11:I Amounl OIl... 61 you wont AJlPLlIO TO YOUR 1194 UnllATEO TAX . Il3 &4 If 11n. 53 II mof'l than Ii". 80, subtract line 60 from line 53. This Is the AMOUNT YOU OWE. For details on how to pay, Including what to wnte on your payment. see page 29 . . . III ,E.llm.loIl till penatty (s.. page 291. A1ao inClude on line &C 115 ~ UndIf' pen.atI_ of PIfII.I"t. I dedM. tNtl hlvt .l.IfTVl'l<<I thIs~...-n n:l ~ ICheduIM W'ld I1&t,"*"I, n to the best of my krlowtIdgI W'ld beltet. they .. ttue, ~. and com . 0eci1f11M)f\ of p'~.loUW than t&J.pay*1 II based on .. lflformatlOn aI whleh prtplf"tt I\U It\'y~. ~ You"ignalur t-~ /;~If"f3 Yourocc_'<>n ~ "" '9" ;X/~ :M Enter the ....... 01 your: zco :III II II 31 -t>- 31 :18 31 31 40 -()- :II 40 41 42 42 44 . '...,' . 45 45 41 41 41 80 111 112 53 -1>- -.- . M 115 lie 111 580 SIb Oil' Choc' · 0 ...- UNo ZIP coOl ~. lOCiai J<<urit; no. v. * IN THE COURT or COMKON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEJD1SYLVUIA * * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * NO. 94-5538 * * * HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, plaintiff H.E. LUKB LUCAS and RHOHDA A. LUCAS, Defendants PLAINTIrF'S ARBITRATION BRIEr AND NOW comes Plaintiff by and through its attorney Arthur A. Kusic, Esquire and pursuant to the request of the chairman of the Board of Arbitrators, respectfully presents its Brief as follows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On or about October 3, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in order to recover amounts due for services rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. On or about November 7, 1994, Defendants did file their Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's complaint. On or about November 17, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Answer to New Matter. Thereafter, Plaintiff did List the matter for Arbitration and files this Brief upon request of the Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators. II. FACTUAL HISTORY From on or about September 16, 1993 through to or about October 1, 1993, Plaintiff, at the request of Defendants, did render necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Defendant H. E. Luke Lucas, spouse of the aforesaid Defendant, did sign the Contest to Treat form . Thereafter, when Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff $3,013.00 for services rendered and failed to provide the documentation necessary for Hill-Burton assistance, Plaintiff filed suit. DefendantE' denied owing the aforesaid sum and alleged they are entitled to Hill-Burton benefits due to their Income Tax Return for 1992, even through the services were provided in the later half of 1993. Defendants further alleged that they had an extension to file their 1993 Income Tax Return, which extension was due to run November 15, 1994. plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants are not entitled to receive any benefits under the Hill-Burton Act unless and until they provide the proper documentation and proof as to their 1993 income. III. OUESTIONS A. QUESTION: IS 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 (Proceedings in case of debts contracted for necessaries) APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES B. QUESTION: DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO : -'"^ -, . I - - - ' . IV. ARGUMENT A. IS 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? (Proceedings in case of debts contracted for necessaries) Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 entitled "Proceedings in case of debts contracted for necessaries" is applicable to the case at bar. The statute states as follows: "In all cases where debts are contracted for necessaries by either spouse for the support and maintenance of the family, it shall be lawful for the creditor in this case to institute suit against the husband and wife for t~e price of such necessaries and, after obtaining judgment, have an execution against the spouse contracting the debt alone; and if no property of the spouse is found, execution may be levied upon and satisfied out of the separate property of the other spouse." In the instant case, Plaintiff rendered medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Her spouse, Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas, even executed the Consent to Treat form, thus evidencing knowledge and authorization of the treatment rendered to his wife. Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas drove his wife to Plaintiff's facility and either actually or implicitly requested Plaintiff to treat his wife. Plaintiff did render necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas for the benefit of her health and welfare. In return for such services rendered, Plaintiff reasonably expected to be recompensed. It should be noted that the medical treatment rendered by Plaintiff to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas constitutes "necessaries". Even a fur coat may constitute "necessaries". See Gimbel Brothers. Inc. v. Pinto, 188 Pa. Super. 72, 145 A.2d 865 (1958), wherein the Court held that a mink coat for which the plaintiff demanded payment come under the concept of "necessaries" and that the defendant husband was therefore liable for his wife's purchase thereof. The Gimbel Court provided a broad view of the concept of "necessaries": . . . "The concept is not restricted to bare necessities of life; on the other hand the weight of authority is that necessaries 'include those things needed and suitable to the rank and condition of the spouses and the style of life they have adopted. What necessaries are in kind and amount is to be determined in each case by the means, ability, social position, and circumstances of both husband and wife'." The concept of "necessaries" originated in common law, which long held that the husband was responsible for the support of his family. See Clothier v. Wolff, 66 Pa. Super, 328 (1917). Under the Doctrine of Necessaries, the husband was responsible for providing .... his wife and children with such essential services as clothing, lOdging, food and medical care. 41 A.Jur.2d, Husband and wife, 330. The Court in Geisinqer Medical Center v. Salerno, 40 D.&C.3d 668 (1986) dealt with the issue of whether the wife may be held liable for medical services rendered her spouse (deceased at the time of the case). In denying the objections of the defendant wife, the Court stated the following: .....It should be noted that the 'doctrine of necessaries' was a judicially created doctrine and has developed by court action in the common law. We reject the concept that the Equal Rights Amendment eliminates policy considerations which recognize and compensate the benefactor of a husband, wife or child who provides 'necessary I goods or services. Further, we believe certainty of compensation will encourage present and potential providers of necessaries to continue to render such benefits. Although each spouse may now stand as secondarily liable for the provision of necessaries to the other, the obligation is essentially mutual in nature. As rights have been extended by law, so must responsibilities be correspondingly extended." (I.!L. 670). Later courts as well have rendered verdicts against both spouses tor medical care provided only to one. see Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Baqlev, 50 D.&C. 3d 464 (1988). Thus the doctrine ot necessaries was judicially modified so that each spouse became primarily responsible for necessaries furnished himself or herselt, and secondarily liable for those furnished to the martial partner. Park Avenue Hosoital v. Klees, 20 D.&C. 3d 124, 130-133 (C.C.P. Northumb.1981) . Seen in the light of the foregoing "history" of the doctrine ot necessaries in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff believes that the 23 PA.C.S.A. 4201 is clearly applicable to the instant case and that the law most assuredly permits Plaintiff to seek satisfaction ot the balance due and owing from both Defendants for the services ot necessaries rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. B. DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? Plaintiff believes that at the current time, the Hill-Burton Act does not effect the case at bar. Plaintiff does not dispute that it is required to provide certain assistance to the indigent under the Hill-Burton Act. However, according to its guidelines, PLaintiff may reject an Application for Hill-Burton Assistance if the patient fails to provide proof of income. Plaintiff believes and thereforE! that the Defendants have failed to provide such required proof on income or lack thereof. Plaintiff rendered necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas from on or about September 16, 1993 through to or about October 1, 1993. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with their Income Tax Return for tax year 1993 until November 17, 1994. On or about June 7, 1994, the Defendants did indicate that they had an extension to file the Return until August 15, 1994. When the Return was not received, Plaintiff initiated suit on or about October 3, 1994. Thereafter, in paragraph 14 of their New Matter, Defendants claim they had not filed their 1993 Income TAx Return because they filed for an extension until November 15, 1994. On or about December 9, 1994, Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of Defendants' purported 1993 Return. A copy of said Return is attached hereto, Plaintiff has not received documentation to substantiate the 1993 Tax Return. It should be noted that the 1993 Tax Return was signed by both Defendants and that the date of signing in each case is "11-15-93". Obviously, November 15, 1993 predates the end of the taxing year in question. Although wages in the amount of $945.25 are set forth, no W-2 forms are enclosed to as substantiation. Equally puzzling, is the reason why the Defendants needed an extension until November 15, 1993 in order to file such a simple return. For these reasons, Plaintiff believes that it has correctly denied the applicability of Hill-Burton to the instant case. {I V. CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinabove set forth, Plaintiff requests that the Board of Arbitrators enter their A....ard in favor of PLaint1,tt and against Defendants in the amount of $3,013.00 along with interest at the legal rate and the costs of this proceeding. ARTHUR A. 51, SQUIRE 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 supreme Court No. 07207 Attorney for Plaintiff ~~~::i'. ., .. . I l . .' <~~ -- " "",,,,,'X",,",,,,c,,"~~^f."_" "- ''':''''_''''',"..."."-i(-MM:'~,~,,,,; "_"""'- ""'""j"\-'''':<:''!''''''"'~'~~~''''''''''j.",cp"~"""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,"--~,,,-,,, Arthur A. Kuslcf p.e. 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, P^ 17112 --,~-':----:-J ,........--;"'""'.:..;,;... ..: "_:-\i\S-~;:-~.~~~":-- .. "I" ....~"~!"~ /~, iJS;'J,:;",[ ,: fc~ :'./1~'C 03 2 - jj ,p~ t, J.J:1l1 ~"-_'__' ..... Arthur A. Kuslc, p.e. 4201 Crums Mill Road -L1"~ ^ltp.ntJon: i..-l. 9'1- c -jv'J-. ~-'--"""""'-----'-'''''''---'''-''''''''''''''->Ip,.-=''''''''''-"~~."''''_~J.'~~__T .r - , . , .. " , ,. . I , \. .. - - [" HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, Plaintiff . IN TBI COURT or CONNON PLIAS . CONBBRLAHD COUNTY, PIMHSYLVAHIA * . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . NO. 114-5538 . . . v. B.I. Lual LUCAS and RBOIfDA A. LUCAS, Defendant. PLAINTIrr'S ARBITRATION BRIlr AND NOW comes Plaintiff by and through its attorney Arthur A. Kusic, Esquire and pursuant to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators, respectfully presents its Brief as follows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On or about October 3, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in order to recover amounts due for services rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. On or about November 7, 1994, Defendants did file their Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint. On or about November 17, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Answer to New Matter. Thereafter, Plaintiff did List the matter for Arbitration and files this Brief upon request of the Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators. II. FACTUAL HISTORY From on or about September 16, 1993 through to or about October 1, 1993, Plaintiff, at the request of Defendants, did render necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Defendant H. E. Luke Lucas, spouse of the aforesaid Defendant, did sign the Contest to Treat form . Thereafter, when Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff $3,013.00 for .ervices rendered and failed to provide the documentation nece..ary for Hill-Burton assistance, Plaintiff filed Buit. Defendants denied owing the aforesaid sum and alleged they are entitled to Hill-Burton benefits due to their Income Tax Return for 1992, even through the services were provided in the later half of 1993. Defendants further alleged that they had an extension to file their 1993 Income Tax Return, which extension was dUB to run November 15, 1994. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants are not entitled to receive any benefits under the Hill-Burton Act unless and until they provide the proper documentation and proof as to their 1993 income. III. OUESTIONS A. QUESTION: IS 23 Pa.C,S.A. 4102 (pruceedings in case of debts contraoted for neoessaries) APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES B. QUESTION: DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO IV. ARGUMENT A. IS 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? (Proceedings in case of debts contracted for necessari.s) Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 entitled "Proceedings in case of debts contracted for necessari.." i. applicabls to the case at bar. The statute states as follows: "In all cases where debts are contracted for necessaries by either spouse for the support and maintenance of the family, it shall be lawful for the creditor in this case to institute suit against the husband and wife for the price of such necessaries and, after obtaining judgment, have an execution against the spouse contracting the debt alone; and if no property of the spouse is found, execution may be levied upon and satisfied out of the separate property of the other spouse." In the instant case, Plaintiff rendered medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Her spouse, Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas, even executed the Consent to Treat form, thus evidencing knowledge and authorization of the treatment rendered to his wife. Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas drove his wife to Plaintiff's facility and either actually or implicitly requested Plaintiff to treat his wife. Plaintiff did render necessary mediclIl services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas for the benefit of her health and welfare. In return for such services rendered, Plaintiff reasonably ~xpected to be recompensed. It should be noted that the medical treatment renderod by Plaintiff to Oet'endant Rhonda A. Lucas conetitutes "necessaries". Even a fur coat may constitute "necessaries". See Gimbel Brothers. Ine. v. Pinto, 188 Pa, Super. 72, 145 A.2d 865 (1958), wherein the Court held that a mink coat for which the plaintiff demanded payment come under the concept of "necessaries" and that the defendant husband was therefore liable for his wife I s purchase thereof. The Gimbel Court provided a broad view of the concept of "necessaries": . .. "The concept is not restricted to bare necessities of life; on the other hand the weight of authority is that necessaries 'include those things needed and suitable to the rank and condition of the spouses and the style of life they have adopted. What necessaries are in kind and amount is to be determined in each case by the means, ability, social position, and circumstances of both husband and wife I. II The concept of "necessaries" originated in common law, which long held that the husband was responsible for the support of his family. See Clothier v. Wolff, 66 Pa. Super, 328 (1917). Under the Doctrine of Necessaries, the husband was responsible for providing his wife and children with such eRsential services as clothing, lodging, food and medical care. 41 A.Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, 330. The Court in Geisinaer Medical Center v. Salerno, 40 D.&C.3d 668 (1986) dealt with the issue of whether the wife may be held liable for medical services rendered her spouse (deceased at the time of the case). In denying the objections of the defendant wife, the Court stated the following: . . . "It should be noted that the 'doctrine of necessaries' was a judicially created doctrine and has developed by court action in the common law. We reject the concept that the Equal Rights Amendment eU,minates policy considerations which recognize and compensate the benefactor of a husband, wife or child who provides 'necessary' goods or services. Further, we believe certainty of compensation will encourage present and potential providers of necessaries to continue to render such benefits. Al though each spouse may now stand as secondarily liable for the provision of necessaries to the other, the obligation is essentially mutual in nature. As rights have been extended by law, so must responsibilities be correspondingly extended." (I!L.. 670). Later courts as well have rendered verdicts against both spouses for medical care provided only to one. see Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Baalev, 50 D.&C. 3d 464 (1988). Thus the doctrine of necessaries was judicially modified so that each spouse became primarily responsible for necessaries furnished himself or herself, and secondarily liable for those furnished to the martial partner. Park Avenue HosDital v. Klees, 20 D.&C. 3d 124, 130-133 (C.C.P. Northumb.1981). Seen in the light of the foregoing "history" of the doctrine of necessaries in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff believes that the 23 PA.C.S.A. 4201 is clearly applicable to the instant case and that the law most assuredly permits Plaintiff to seek satisfaction of the balance due and owing from both Defendants for the services of necessaries rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. B. DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? Plaintiff believes that at the current time, the Hill-Burton Act does not effect the case at bar. Plaintiff does not dispute that it is required to provide certain assistance to the indigent under the Hill-Burton Act. However, according to its guidelines, PLaintiff may reject an Application for Hill-Burton Assistance if the patient fails to provide proof of income. Plaintiff believes and therefore that the Defendants have failed to provide such required proof on income or lack thereof. Plaintiff rendered necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas from on or about September 16, 1993 through to or about October 1, 1993. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with their Income Tax Return for tax year 1993 until November 17, 1994. On or about June 7, 1994, the Defendants did indicate that they had an extension to file the Return until August 15, 1994. When the Return was not received, Plaintiff initiated suit on or about October 3, 1994. Thereafter, in paragraph 14 of their New Matter, Defendants claim they had not filed their 1993 Income TAx Return because they filod for an extension until November 15, 1994. On or about December 9, 1994, Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of Defendants' purported 1993 Return. A copy of said Return is attached hereto, Plaintiff has not received documentation to substantiate the 1993 Tax Return. It should be noted that the 1993 Tax Return was signed by both Defendants and that the date of signing in each case is "11-15-93". Obviously, November 15, 1993 predates the end of the taxing year in question. Although wages in the amount of $945.25 are set forth, no W-2 forms are enclosed to as substantiation. Equally puzzling, is the reason why the Defendants needed an extension until November 15, 1993 in order to file such a simple return. For these reasons, Plaintiff believes that it has correctly denied the applicability of Hill-Burton to the instant case. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinabove set forth, plaintiff requests that the Board of Arbitrators enter their Award in favor of PLaintiff and aqainst Defendants in the amount of $3,013.00 along with interest at the legal rate and the costs of this proceeding. ARTHUR A. , 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 Supreme Court No. 07207 Attorney for Plaintiff HARRISBURG HOSPITAL Plaintiff : IN THE CUURr Of' COMMON PLEAS : COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA : CUMBERLAND : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ; NO. 94-5538 : v. : H.E.LUKE LUCAS AND RHONDA A. LUCAS : : : Defendant ; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Arthur A. KUSIC. Esquire. do hereby certify that on th is ~nd . 1995 f r placed in the United day of MAy_ States Mail true and correct cOpIes of Arbitration Brief with first class postage Plaintiff !a--- ----- affixed and addressed to following: Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY 11 East High Street CArlisle, PA 170'3-3016 (Chairman of Arbitrators) 4~ ~~7J~~~ad e-;.a~Box=t-t 585, Harrisburgf PA 17112 (7171 540-5610 Attorne,Y for the Plaintiff Supreme Court 1.0. 07207 samuel W. Milkes, Esquire 22 West Pomfret street CArlisle, PA 17~.3 Jennifer Deichtman, Esquire ~ i ftr t c~ As S oc-/,d<'-.s ~).J,u r', 1'I/e",V/~,-srrJ/tt:r Q...rlis/., ,~/? 1"><>1) H.E. Luke Lucas, Esquire 222 Pine Street HArrisburg, PA 17101 ,IiAY 3 1995ck HARRISBURQ HOSPITAL, Plaintiff * IN THE COURT O~ COKMON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAMIA * * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * NO. '4-5538 * * * v. B.E. LuaB LUCAS and RUONDA A. LUCAS, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S ARBITRATION BRIE~ AND NOW comes Plaintiff by and through its attorney Arthur A. Rusic, Esquire and pursuant to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators, respectfully presents its Brief as follows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On or about October 3, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in order to recover amounts due for services rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. On or about November 7, 1994, Defendants did file their Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint. On or about November 17, 1994, Plaintiff filed its Answer to New Matter. Thereafter, Plaintiff did List the matter for Arbitration and files this Brief upon request of the Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators. II. FACTUAL HISTORY From on or about September 16, 1993 through to or about October 1, 1993, Plaintiff, at the request of Defendants, did render necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Defendant H. E. Luke Lucas, spouse of the aforesaid Defendant, did sign the Contest to Treat form . Thereafter, when Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff $3,013.00 tor services rendered and failed to provide the documentation necessary for Hill-Burton assistance, Plaintiff filed suit. Defendants denied owing the aforesaid sum and alleged they are entitled to Hill-Burton benefits due to their Income Tax Return for 1992, even through the services were provided in the later half of 1993. Defendants further alleged that they had an extension to file their 1993 Income Tax Return, which extension was due to run November 15, 1994. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants are not entitled to receive any benefits under the Hill-Burton Act unless and until they provide the proper documentation and proof as to their 1993 income. III. OUESTIONS A. QUESTION: IS 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 (Proceedings in case of debts contracted tor necessaries) APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES B. QUESTION: DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO IV. ARGUMENT A. IS 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE? (Proceedings in case ot debts contracted tor necessaries) Plaintiff believes and there tore avers that 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4102 entitled "proceedings in case ot debts contracted tor necessaries" is applicable to the case at bar. The statute states as tollows: "In all cases where debts are contracted tor necessaries by either spouse for the support and maintenance at the tamily, it shall be lawful tor the creditor in this case to institute suit against the husband and wite tor the price of such necessaries and, after obtaining judgment, have an execution against the spouse contracting the debt alone; and it no property of the spouse is found, execution may be levied upon and satisfied o~t of the separate property of the other spouse." In the instant case, Plaintiff rendered medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. Her spouse, Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas, even executed the Consent to Treat form, thus evidencing knowledge and authorization of the treatm&nt rendered to his wife. Defendant H.E. Luke Lucas drove his wife to Plaintiff's facility and either actually or implicitly requested Plaintiff to treat his wife. Plaintiff did render necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas for the benefit of her health and welfare. In return for such services rendered, Plaintiff reasonably expected to be recompensed. It should be noted that the medical treatment rendered by Plaintiff to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas constitutes "necessaries". Even a fur coat may constitute "necessaries". See Gimbel Brothers. Inc. v. Pinto, 188 Pa. Super. 72, 145 A.2d 865 (1958), wherein the Court held that a mink coat for which the plaintiff demanded payment come under the concept of "necessaries" and that the defendant husband was therefore liable for his wife I s purchase thereof. The Gimbel Court provided a broad view of the concept of "necessaries" : . . . "The concept is not restricted to bare necessities of life; on the other hand the weight of authority is that necessaries 'include those things needed and suitable to the rank and condition of the spouses and the style of life they have adopted. What necessaries are in kind and amount is to be determined in each case by the means, ability, social position, and circumstances of both husband and wife'." The concept of "necessaries" originated in common law, which long held that the husband was responsible for the support of his family. See Clothier v. Wolff, 66 Pa. Super, 328 (1917). Un~er the Doctrine of Necessaries, the husband was responsible for providing his wife and children with such essential services as clothing, lodging, food and medical care. 41 A.Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, 330. The Court in Geisinaer Medical Center v. Salerno, 40 D.&C.3d 668 (1986) dealt with the issue of whether the wife may be held liable for medical services rendered her spouse (deceased at the time of the case). In denying the objections of the defendant wife, the Court stated the fOllowing: ..."It should be noted that the 'doctrine of necessaries' was a judicially created doctrine and has deve~oped by court action in the common law. We reject the concept that the Equal Rights Amendment eliminates policy considerations which recognize and compensate the benefactor of a husband, wife or child who provides 'necessary' goods or services. Further, we believe certainty of compensation will encourage present and potential providers of necessaries to continue to render such benefits. Although each spouse may now stand as secondarily liable for the provision of necessaries to the other, the obligation is eesentially mutual in nature. As rights have neen extended by law, so must responsibilities be correspondingly extended." (Id. 670). Later courts as well have rendered verdicts against both spouses for medical care provided only to one. see Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Baalev, 50 D.&C. 3d 464 (1988). Thus the doctrine of necessaries was judicially modified so that each spouse became primarily responsible for necessaries furnished himself or herself, and secondarily liable for those furnished to the martial partner. Park Avenue Hospital v. Klees, 20 D.&C. 3d 124, 130-133 (C.C.P. Northumb.1981) . Seen in the light of the foregoing "history" of the doctrine of necessaries in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff believes that the 23 PA.C.S.A. 4201 is clearly applicable to the instant case and that the law most assuredly permits Plaintiff to seek satisfaction of the balance due and owing from both Defendants for the services of necessaries rendered to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas. B. DOES THE HILL-BURTON ACT EFFECT THIS CASE? Plaintiff believes that at the current time, the Hill-Burton Act does not effect the case at bar. Plaintiff does not dispute that it is required to provide certain assistance to the indigent under the Hill-Burton Act. However, according to its guidelines, PLaintiff may reject an Application for Hill-Burton Assistance if the patient fails to provide proof of income. Plaintiff believes and therefore that the Defendants have failE\d to provide such required proof on income or lack thereof. Plaintiff rendered necessary medical services to Defendant Rhonda A. Lucas from on or about september 16, 1993 through to or about october 1, 1993. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with their Income Tax Return for tax year 1993 until November 17, 1994. On or about June 7, 1994, the Defendants did indicate that they had an extension to file the Return until August 15, 1994. When the Return was not received, Plaintit! initiated suit on or about October 3, 1994. Thereafter, in paragraph 14 of their New Matter, Defendants claim they had not filed their 1993 Income TAx Return because they filed for an extension until November 15, 1994. On or about December 9, 1994, Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of Defendants' purported 1993 Return. A copy of said Return is attached hereto, Plaintiff has not received documentation to substantiate the 1993 Tax Return. It should be noted that the 1993 Tax Return was signed by both Defendants and that the date of signing in each case is "11-15-93". Obviously, November 15, 1993 predates the end of the taxing year in question. Although wages in the amount of $945.25 are set forth, no W-2 forms are enclosed to as substantiation. Equally puzzling, is the reason why the Defendants needed an extension until November 15, 1993 in order to file such a simple return. For these reasons, Plaintiff believes that it has correctly denied the applicability of Hill-Burton to the instant case. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinabove set forth, Plaintiff requests that the Board of Arbitrators enter their Award in favor of PLaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $3,013.00 along with interest at the legal rate and the costa of this proceeding. ARTHURA. , 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 Supreme Court No. 07207 Attorney for Plaintiff HARRISBURG HOSPITAL Plaintiff : IN THE COURT Vi-' C(>>IH()N PLEAS : COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA : CUMBERLAND : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 94-5538 : v. H.E.LUKE LUCAS AND RHONDA A. LUCAS : : : Defendant : CERTIFICAT~ PF SE~VIC~ I. Arthur A. KUSIC. Esquire. do hereby certify that on thIS ~nd da.v of MAy . ,g~5 f I placed in the United States Mal/ Arbitration true and correct copIes of PlaiRt-~ff!"_m' Brief with first class postage affixed and addressed to fo//owlng: Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & 11 East High street CArlisle, PA 170.3-3016 (Chairman of ArbJtratorsl LINDSAY - _. THU A. 4201 Cru s ,.,il/ P-;f3;c .-Bo.>c:o'" 585 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-5610 Attorne.v for the Plaintiff Supreme Court 1.0. 07207 Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire 22 West Pomfret Street CArlisle, PA 17~.3 Jennifer Deichtman, Esquire 67",' ~ s:/ <! '1 A<;"5 .c,b ".. S ~ ;f}</rff., /oJi.....;I,H/ SF,""'" r 0I..r1,,,{~,/,4 ho/) H.E. Luke Lucas, Esquire 222 Pine street HArrisburg, PA 17101 HARRISSURG HOIPITAL, IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLI!AS Of CUMIIRLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA pt....tIff ... NO. 1..1131 ClVlL TERM H.E. LUKE LUCAS end RHONDA A. LUCA'. Defend.... OATH We do solemnly Iwear (or effirm) thst we will support. obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwaalth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. k:R = <>-': 7" ''J ~''J '~ <-" "- h, v) AWARD We. the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or effirmed), make the following award: tNot... /I ~ 101 dMtv .,. .VlAfWd, rlttr; IMl be ..."t..y .",..' (,J( t:~' ~f"'rl ,~,\ c..Kt~J ~~ L.:"" ~ .1 oo.! (1M- ~ c~I~'1~' Arbitrator. dissents. ((neert nom. if opplic.ble,) ~ Date of Hearing: Seotember 28. 1995 Date of Award: _-11 1. f I '1 \~ Nd~', l'>~ ~"'.)"'., tl ,j;.1 1"0 f- C'f('C\j"', NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD Now, the # day of ~, .1995, at d'-d)"? o'clock, f> .M.. the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. xl ,JC.l,.J.{':fl/'; [I (/J,~, Prothonotary rbitrators' compensation to be aid upon appeal: $ C)(.;(J !'Y) By: 'lPf'ff1 r ~t. ~ Oeputy q',Ji,q} ~ ~ {. ~J CU~ fen -'15 ldfly lhaJV ~ 4- ~~ ~.df ~~ J./h 1 ~ f' ~1v... M !k~~ , t M...j~"'" -r 4_t_ 4 d.. ~J..-- /IIc..,1J,....." N--- .,. . 4 v. * I. TBI COURT or COMKO. 'LKaa * CUIOIDn,1YID COl1Jl'1'Y, ,...nLVUIA * * CIVIL ACTIO. - LAW * * 110. '.-5538 * * * BAaaI.IURG .O"ITAL, nabaUff .... LOS. LUC" aDd ..~ A. LUCAI, D.f.DdaDt. '.ABCI'B TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Entry of Award of Arbitrator. attached hereto, please enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,013.00. R~L' ARTHUR . KUSI RE 4201 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 11112 (111) 540-5610 Supreme Court No. 01201 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: , '. " " - . ' t" "" "...., I HARRISaURG HOSPITAL. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMIERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA l'Iolndl1 va. NO. 114.1153S CIVIL TERM H.E, LUKE LUCAS ond RHONDA A. LUCAS, o.lond.." OATH -. '-. nl~f- J , 'J '-- ,'. ..... AWARD We. the undersigned arbitrators. having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed). make the following award: tNot... ,.".,.. 101 d.V .,. .....nMI. r/lrf Jhd .. "'l1Ittfr .r.,..1 ~I- Cvv-( ;:.. ...........,.....t. "'~ ...~ ~. IN- C\.A< Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert nsmo if sppticobls.1 Date of Hearing: Seotember 28. 1995 Date of Award: .\ I (,f/1 \~ N0/'t: D~\<.",J".,ts did "or <-pr''"'''' NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD I Now, the # day of ~. .1995, at dJ'd)"f o'c1ock. fJ .M" the above award was entered upon the docket and no(ice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. xl . Xk.ftJ:nr'-' [' lu/..#;., Prothonolarv rbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ c)tv(J f9() By: 'i1i~rtd r ~k. /~:; OopulV i