{
  "id": 1646563,
  "name": "Polk County Memorial Hospital v. Johnson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Polk County Memorial Hospital v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1955-04-04",
  "docket_number": "5-611",
  "first_page": "917",
  "last_page": "923",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "224 Ark. 917"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "278 S.W.2d 640"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 695,
    "char_count": 12086,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "sha256": "8366f8987b51f69b68dae03b94412453e01ec8f3f7bfdad51166b522c95369e4",
    "simhash": "1:03eb4775a471fc0c",
    "word_count": 2002
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:52.725032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice Millwee did not participate in the consideration or determination of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Polk County Memorial Hospital v. Johnson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nThe appeal presents two issues: Did the appellee, who was defendant below, present substantial competent evidence to absolve himself from a written promise to pay? Should it be found that the evidence was sufficient, did the admission of incompetent testimony prejudice the plaintiff\u2019s rights?\nOn May 19th, 1952, John W. Hydrick, 86 or 87 years of age, was admitted to Polk County Memorial Hospital and assigned to a room for which the regular charge was $5.50 per day. Since 1940 Hydrick had been living with Gerald Johnson who owns a farm about fifteen miles from Mena. The Johnsons \u2014 husband, wife, and son\u2014 were the' closest friends Hydrick had, and he was treated as a member of the family. Illness eventually became chronic, necessitating hospitalization for a short period in March, 1951; January, 1952; April 14th and May 7th, 1952, and finally on May 19th. The May 19th tenure continued for 53 days, or until July 11th, when Hydrick died.\nThere is evidence supporting the Hospital\u2019s contention that on August 28th following the patient\u2019s death a statement was sent to Johnson showing that he was charged with $898.65 for services rendered to Hydrick, against which there was a $50 credit representing a \u201cwelfare check\u201d due the patient, but received by Mrs. Gerald Johnson and turned over to the Hospital July 9th. This left a balance of $848.65 for which suit was brought after Johnson had disclaimed liability.\nA printed form recording admissions to the Hospital is used for entering essential information relating to the patient. The last line bears the imprint, \u201cI hereby agree to pay for services rendered to this patient.\u201d This is followed by the words, printed boldly in capital letters, \u201cSignature of guarantor.\u201d Admittedly Johnson signed this guarantee \u2014 -a transaction he undertook to explain through his own testimony and by calling several witnesses.\nThe court permitted the defendant to range widely on cross-examination, and allowed unusual latitude to the witnesses he called directly.' Many of the questions and answers were objected to by appellant.\nPreliminary to introduction of the May 19th admission sheet the plaintiff presented documents relating to former services. The first was March 19, 1951. Following \u201cperson responsible for this account,\u201d Johnson\u2019s name appears, but it is not contended that the writing is his signature. In a form for January 23d, 1952, no name appears, but the Hospital\u2019s memorandum is that Johnson should be notified in case of emergency. An April 14th entry is similar to the January record except that following \u201cperson responsible for this account\u201d the word \u201c welfare \u2019 \u2019 had been written, then scratched through. The substitution was: \u201cNot welfare \u2014 Gerald Johnson.\u201d This was not in Johnson\u2019s handwriting; nor is it claimed that he authorized the indorsement by express words. Following \u201cperson responsible\u201d on the May 7th record Hospital authorities noted that Johnson was to be informed in case of emergency. His relationship was listed as \u201cfriend.\u201d Farther down, but not on the line showing Johnson\u2019s name, \u201cpay on discharge\u201d is preceded by \u201cperson responsible for this account.\u201d\nThe March 17th item was paid by Johnson. Hydrick was in the Hospital on that occasion about two hours and the charge was $5. The January charge of $71.25 was \u201ctaken care of \u201d by the welfare department. In discharge of the April obligation Mrs. Gerald Johnson sent a check for $53.30. The May 7th debit, amounting to $49.90, was paid by Mrs. Johnson, but the jury would have been warranted in finding that she handled Hydrick\u2019s welfare checks during his periods of incapacity and that these were used in paying hospital charges.\nWhen Hydrick\u2019s treatment began May 19th he was placed in a room for which the charge was $5.50 a day. On the 22d he was moved to a $7.50 room where he remained until changed to one costing $8.50 a day. A Hospital bookkeeper testified that the business office procured Johnson\u2019s consent to move the patient into the more expensive quarters, but this was denied by the defendant. Other Hospital witnesses did not know whether Johnson\u2019s approval was procured. Mrs. Johnson made daily visits to Hydrick, and Gerald made frequent calls. He admitted knowing that the patient had been moved to different rooms, but had no information regarding the cost.\nHydrick had a married daughter \u2014 Mrs. A. W. Brewer \u2014 who resided in Arizona. On June 4th, the \u2022 Hospital wrote her, enclosing a statement of the account to the first of that month, saying: \u201cPlease send.remittance, or let us hear from you in regard to this account.\u201d Mrs. Brewer replied (after the full account had been turned over to a collection agency) denying responsibility and expressing her belief that Hydrick was Johnson\u2019s employe and that he should pay the bill. This disclaimer appears to have been sent after the Hospital\u2019s board of governors placed the item with the credit bureau Nov. 2, 1952.\nAt trial the defendant\u2019s attorneys repeatedly stressed the fact that a subpoena duces tecum had been served upon one of the Hospital\u2019s responsible agents, directing that certain records be produced, but the witness failed to obey the command. In explanation the person so subpoenaed said that she thought the order was to bring the paper that had been served upon her. She claimed to have made inquiry of the serving deputy, who told her it would not be necessary to bring the Hospital records. The deputy denied this. However, the records were brought into court and the defendant was given an opportunity to examine them, hence prejudice cannot be predicated upon failure of the witness to obey the mandate. In fact, the court commented that there was no ulterior purpose.\nDirector Irene Thinness of the Polk County Welfare Department testified, over the plaintiff\u2019s objections, that Hydrick was approved for welfare aid in 1940 and throughout the years he had received amounts varying with authorized funds as they became available. For February, 1952, he received $48 and this continued through March, April, May, and June; but for July it was increased to $50. During January, 1952, welfare supplied funds for Hydride\u2019s hospitalization. The director was out of the county when Hydrick was sent to the Hospital May 19th. It had been determined, however, that the applicant was afflicted with a chronic disease, and assistance is not given in these circumstances. In ruling on appellant\u2019s objections to most of the testimony given by the director, the court- said: \u201cAny official records of the welfare department that shed any light in this case should be made available to it.\u201d\nThe purpose of this testimony appears to have been directed to a contradiction of statements that Hydrick was Johnson\u2019s employe. But the witness testified that she did not make a personal investigation to ascertain the truth or falsity of the application for assistance, nor did she know of anyone who had. On hearsay and belief, however, the witness was confident that Hydrick \u201chad never [since 1940] been employed for money.\u201d Her records showed that the old man was \u201cnot employable.\u201d\nAppellant strenuously objected to the introduction of quorum court records showing that Polk county had made appropriations for the Hospital. The court\u2019s ruling was: \u201cThey are admissible. Let them be introduced with the right to substitute a copy of each exhibit. \u2019 \u2019 For 1950 the amount appropriated was $10,000; for 1951, $5,000; for 1952, $5,000; for 1953, $5,000, of which $1,500 was to pay a Hospital note, the remainder to be left in the county treasury. When claims were filed with statements attached they would be paid upon order of the county court. [Another paragraph appropriates $1,500 for the payment of November (1953) bills, but this may be the same item mentioned as a Hospital note.] The amount appropriated in 1954 was $5,000.\nCounty Judge John Gordon, over defense objections, was permitted to testify that he endeavored to enlist welfare aid for Hydrick incidental to the May 19th hospitalization,- but the director was not available and Mrs. Purtle, who was in temporary charge, did not have the authority to act. Judge Gordon was also allowed to testify that Johnson\u2019s reputation for honesty and integrity was good, but rejected testimony that the defendant\u2019s reputation for paying his debts was good.' At no- time was Johnson\u2019s reputation put in issue. Exceptions were saved to :G\u00f3rdon\u2019s 'statements.\nThe defendant testified at length. Hydrick, he said, came to Polk county about 45 years ago and settled on a farm adjoining the one he now owns. Hydrick lost his wife in 1937 or 1938. His daughter came from Arizona \u201cand sold the place out from under the. old man, then put him in a car and drove to Oklahoma and dumped him out with an old fellow named Craig.\u201d Hydrick'wrote Johnson that he wanted to return to Polk county, where he could be buried by the side of his wife. But Hydrick, even then, was not physically able to do farm- work. Johnson took him in, treated him as a member of the family, but did not at any time pay wages. He did not remember ever having seen one of Hydrick\u2019s welfare checks: Mrs. Johnson looked after such matters.\nWhen Hydrick required medical attention May 19th Mrs. Johnson took him to the Hospital. Johnson went later and signed the admission blank, but did not know who filled it out. He was not notified that the Hospital authorities were unable to locate Mrs. Brewer. Although without information regarding charges for the room Hydrick occupied, he did go to the Hospital and saw that the patient had been moved. Had he known what the cost was Hydrick would have been taken to a private place operated by Mrs. Markel \u2014 a home for the aged.\nOver plaintiff\u2019s objections Johnson was permitted to testify that before Hydrick was placed in the Hospital May 19th he talked with Judge Gordon \u201cabout getting help from the welfare.\u201d The Judge told him to put the patient in the Hospital, \u201cand if the welfare doesn\u2019t take care of him the county will.\u201d Burial expenses were paid with a welfare check.\nMrs. Gwendolyn P. Lewis, on behalf of the Hospital, testified that county appropriations are usually made to pay for equipment and supplies. Proceeds of a one mill tax are used for maintenance of the building, and upkeep. There is no appropriation for the payment of delinquent bills.\nSince appellee\u2019s signature to the Record of Admission has been fully established, and in the absence of substantial testimony that it was procured through fraud, the issue is one of legal determination. The unqualified indorsement that \u201cI hereby agree to pay for services rendered to this patient\u201d can mean but one thing \u2014 a commitment by Johnson to pay the necessary charges if the patient or-someone else did not. In all probability appellee felt that the welfare department would, pay, or if that source of aid failed the county would supply the deficiency. But these were matters between Johnson and the agencies he thought could be relied upon for protection \u2014 a secondary undertaking with which the Hospital is not shown to have been concerned.\nIn this view of the case the incompetent evidence becomes unimportant, although if a factual issue in extenuation of Johnson\u2019s liability had been presented reversal of the judgment with remand of the cause for a new trial would have been imperative.\nThis is a case where a man whose charitable attitude and goodness of heart created a situation from which he cannot be legally extricated upon the basis of testimony offered. \u25a0 Because no effective defense was shown appellant\u2019s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto should have been sustained. The cause having been fully developed, judgment will be entered here. It is so ordered.\nReversed.\nMr. Justice Millwee did not participate in the consideration or determination of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Collins, Core \u00e9 Collins and James D. Stoker, for appellant.",
      "Nabors Shaw and W. G. Spencer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Polk County Memorial Hospital v. Johnson.\n5-611\n278 S. W. 2d 640\nOpinion delivered April 4, 1955.\n[Rehearing denied May 9, 1955.]\nCollins, Core \u00e9 Collins and James D. Stoker, for appellant.\nNabors Shaw and W. G. Spencer, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0917-01",
  "first_page_order": 939,
  "last_page_order": 945
}