PIERRE, S.D. (Legal Newsline) - A hospital that provided $75,000 in care to a seasonal worker who skipped his bill and returned to Mexico can’t recover the money from the county where he worked, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled.
A state law requiring counties to care for indigent residents doesn’t apply in this case because the worker wasn’t a resident of the county where the hospital is located or the one where he worked, the high court ruled. The fact federal law required the hospital to provide care doesn’t change a county’s obligations under state law, the court said.
The worker identified only as J.R. developed appendicitis in 2014 while working in Sully County on a seasonal visa. A friend took him to Avera St. Mary’s Hospital in Hughes County, where he was treated and released. J.R. had no insurance and less than $20,000 in income that year, so Avera sought payment from Sully County under the state’s poor-relief statute.
Sully County Commissioners rejected the request and a circuit court upheld the decision. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in a May 1 opinion by Justice Scott Myren.
South Dakota’s poor-relief statute requires every county to “relieve and support all poor and indigent persons who have established residency therein.” Both sides agreed J.R. wasn’t a resident of Sully County, but the law also requires county commissioners to “examine the case” of nonresidents who are sick and indigent “and grant such temporary relief as the nature of the case may require.”
“While a county can provide nonresidents with the same relief as is customary for residents, it is not statutorily obligated to do so,” the court said.
J.R. was working in Sully County but a friend took him to Avera in Hughes County, the court said, meaning Sully County had nothing to do with his case.
“He was not transported to Avera by Sully County or at the county’s direction,” the court said. The Commission first became aware of J.R.’s circumstances after he had already presented to Avera in Hughes County for emergency medical treatment.”
The high court cited a 1918 decision in which it also denied reimbursement to a doctor who took care of some indigent workers after they were transported to a hospital in his county. Avera argued the comparison was unfair, since the doctor in that case voluntarily provided care while Avera was obligated to care for J.R. under federal law.
The court said South Dakota lawmakers have not amended the law to provide reimbursement for care mandated under federal law and “public policy arguments …would more appropriately be presented to the Legislature in support of a statutory amendment.”