Another Filial Friday: Rest Haven York v. Deitz

“Nonprecedential decisions” sometimes make me a little crazy.  Talk about them? Ignore them?  What if that’s where all the action is happening on a tough topic? 

This time I think it is important to report a nonprecedential decision, one of the few to emerge from the appellate courts in Pennsylvania in recent years where sons or daughters are not held liable under Pennsylvania’s filial support law, and thus were not required to pay for the parent’s nursing home care.

In the case of Rest Haven York v. Deitz, Case No. 426 MDA 2014, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a nonprecedential memorandum ruling on August 22, 2014.   Mom resided in the plaintiff-nursing home for about two and a half years, and when she died there was an alleged unpaid bill of approximately $55k.  No details are provided in the opinion about why that debt accrued or whether Medicaid was used for any payments.  The amount is large enough to suggest something went wrong somewhere on the payment side of the ledger, but it also is not large enough to suggest that no payments were made.

The facility sued the resident’s daughter, who was alleged to have “signed the admitting papers as agent under a power of attorney” executed by her mother.  The complaint, filed three months after the mother’s death, alleged breach of contract, implied contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, “and breach of duty to support” under Pennsylvania’s filial support law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4603.

Daughter was granted summary judgment by the trial court, dismissing the entire suit.  The only issue on appeal was whether the nursing home had “failed to provide evidence that could have allowed the trial court to declare [the mother] indigent.” Indigency, an undefined term in the statute, is one element of Pennsylvania’s filial support law. 

The appellate court rejected the daughter’s argument that indigency must somehow be declared or established by a judgment before a family member’s support obligation can be triggered.  However, the court also concluded that attaching a copy of the contract signed by the daughter, as agent for her mother, and attaching a copy of “overdue” charges on the mother’s account did not suffice. Interestingly, the court then went on to offer a bit of a lesson on how nursing homes “could” prove their case — so, a nonprecedential opinion with a moral?

“To present competent evidence to prove indigence, Rest Haven should have provided a bank statement or similar documentation attesting to [the mother’s] financial condition.” 

In giving this lesson, the court cited two very precedential cases decided by the same court, Healthcare & Retirement Corp. of America v. Pittas (2012) and Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd (2003).

As I often say to family members or lawyers who are startled to read about filial support law obligations, Pennsylvania appellate courts take this law very seriously when it comes to unpaid nursing homes.  There are some defense strategies available, but a successful defense is not easy.