A.R. Audit Services, Inc. v. Tuttle

A. R. Audit Services, Inc. v. Tuttle, 2017 ND 68 (2017) · North Dakota Supreme Court · March 30, 2017 · No. 20160162

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed a summary judgment awarding A.R. Audit Services, Inc. damages for medical services provided to Charles Tuttle by Trinity Health. The court held that Tuttle failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding his alleged qualification for financial assistance. The court modified the judgment to reimburse Tuttle for an $80 filing fee and affirmed it as modified.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice; Jerod E. Tufte; Carol Ronning Kapsner; Lisa Fair McEvers; Daniel J. Crothers
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
March 30, 2017
Docket number
20160162
Procedural posture
Appeal from a district court judgment granting A.R. Audit Services summary judgment in an action to collect medical debt and denying or dismissing Tuttle's claims and defenses.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo on the record. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, with the benefit of all reasonable favorable inferences.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Charles Tuttle v. A.R. Audit Services, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

summary judgmenthealth lawdamagesstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurehealth lawappellate procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to A.R. Audit Services when Tuttle submitted an affidavit claiming that Trinity representatives told him he qualified for financial assistance.
  2. Whether the judgment should be reduced by $80 because Tuttle had paid A.R. Audit Services' filing fee.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was proper because, considering the entire evidentiary record, a reasonable person could reach only one conclusion: Tuttle remained responsible for the medical debt.
  2. The judgment had to be modified to reduce by $80 the amount Tuttle owed A.R. Audit because Tuttle had paid the filing fee that A.R. Audit, as plaintiff, was required to pay.

Key quotations

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot simply rely on the pleadings or on unsupported conclusory allegations. (¶ 5)
In light of all of the evidence submitted by A.R. Audit contradicting Tuttle’s claims, we conclude a reasonable person could reach only one conclusion from the facts, and the district court did not err in granting A.R. Audit’s motion for summary judgment. (¶ 7)

Factual background

Trinity Health provided Charles Tuttle with $127,001.07 in medical services and later assigned the unpaid debt to A.R. Audit Services. Tuttle applied for financial assistance but did not provide all information required to process the application, and Trinity denied the application. A.R. Audit submitted Trinity's letters and a financial counselor's affidavit, while Tuttle submitted an affidavit asserting that Trinity representatives told him he qualified for assistance and owed nothing.

Procedural history

A.R. Audit Services sued Charles Tuttle to collect a medical debt assigned by Trinity Health. Tuttle asserted a counterclaim and moved to dismiss, arguing that Trinity, rather than A.R. Audit, should have sued him and that Trinity representatives had told him he qualified for financial assistance. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, dismissed the counterclaims, and granted A.R. Audit summary judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but modified it to reduce the amount owed by $80 for a filing-fee reimbursement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…