Parks v. City of Oxford, Mississippi et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 63 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/19/2013. (psk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL –
NORTH MISSISSIPPI, INC.,
V.

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO.: 3:11CV072-SA-DAS

FELICIA PARKS

COUNTER-DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Felicia Parks filed a lawsuit against the City of Oxford, Mississippi, Officer Johnny
Sossaman, as well as Baptist Memorial Hospital – North Mississippi pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. The Court dismissed all those claims by Order dated January 9, 2013 [44].
Baptist Memorial Hospital – North Mississippi filed a counterclaim seeking to collect on the
hospital bill incurred by Plaintiff in the amount of $1,772.95. Plaintiff requests a dismissal of the
counterclaim pursuant to this Court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. BMHNM contests that dismissal and seeks summary judgment on the counterclaim.
The Court will exercise jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to its discretionary authority
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), as the case forms part of the same case or controversy for
which the Court had original jurisdiction. Further, BMH-NM’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is GRANTED for the following reasons:
Factual and Procedural Background
Felicia Parks received medical treatment and services at BMH-NM on June 6, 2010. As
part of her admission to the hospital, she signed an agreement stating that she accepted financial
responsibility for services provided to her. In particular, that Agreement stated:
The undersigned . . . in consideration for the services rendered to the above
named patient, accept financial responsibility and agree to pay in advance any
applicable deductibles, copayments, coinsurance and estimated self pay

dollars and to pay in arrears the facility’s rates and terms for services rendered
to the patient upon a receipt of a statement for such charges. The undersigned
further agree that if such indebtedness is placed in the hands of a collector or
an attorney for collection, the undersigned will pay reasonable attorney fees,
interest, court costs and other collection cost and expenses . . . .
It is undisputed that Plaintiff incurred medical bills in the amount of $1,722.95 for her
admission and treatment at BMH-NM on June 6, 2010. Parks contends that because she did not
consent to medical treatment, she should not be liable for the amount of medical costs incurred.
BMH-NM seeks summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is warranted under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the evidence reveals there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule “mandates the entry of
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails
to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).
Conclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic arguments
are not an adequate substitute for specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. TIG Ins.
Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002). “A party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of
materials in the record . . . or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1). The court is only obligated to consider cited materials
but may consider other materials in the record. Id. at 56(c)(3). The court must resolve factual

2

controversies in favor of the nonmovant “but only when there is an actual controversy, that is,
when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When such contradictory facts exist, the court may “not make
credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000).
Discussion and Analysis
BMH-NM contends it is due summary judgment as there are no genuine disputes
regarding Parks’ contractual obligation to pay the hospital bills incurred. Parks claims that
because treatment was non-consensual, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
she owes the amount. Parks also alludes to a question of fact as to whether she “freely or by
undue influence signed any document obligating her to be financially responsible for unwanted
medical services.” She attached an affidavit to her response in which she makes no claims or
contentions regarding her signing the Admission Agreement under duress, however. While
Parks does contend she did not consent to the testing or procedures conducted at BMH-NM, she
makes no claim by affidavit that her signature and agreement regarding financial responsibility
was questionable. The Court cannot rely on unsubstantiated assertions to find a genuine dispute
of material fact. See TIG Ins. Co., 276 F.3d at 759. Accordingly, the record supports the
granting of summary judgment in this instance. Parks admits to being treated at BMH-NM.
Parks signed the Admission Agreement that she was financially responsible for services
rendered.1 There is no dispute that the outstanding balance for services provided to Felicia Parks
on June 6, 2010, was $1,722.95. The Court, therefore, grants summary judgment as to the
balance of the medical bills as requested.

1

Notably, the Admission Agreement, which Parks signed, additionally contains a “General Consent to Treatment
and Tests” provision.

3

BMH-NM also requests attorneys’ fees pursuant to the financial responsibility
agreement. BMH-NM has requested one-third of the amount of the collected indebtedness
pursuant to Mississippi case law. See Dynasteel Corp. v. Aztec Indus., Inc., 611 So. 2d 977, 987
(Miss. 1992). That case provides a presumption that attorneys’ fees in that amount is reasonable.
Therefore, $574.32 is a presumptively reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees. Parks has failed to
refute BMH-NM’s request for attorneys’ fees or the amount. Accordingly, the Court finds
$574.32 a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees, and determines that pursuant to the Admission
Agreement, that amount is awardable on summary judgment as well.
Conclusion
Felicia Parks incurred medical bills in the amount of $1,722.95, on June 6, 2010. Those
amounts are due and owing by her pursuant to the Admission Agreement she signed. She also
contractually owes $574.32 for attorneys’ fees. Therefore, summary judgment is hereby granted
to BMH-NM on their Counterclaim [8], and final judgment shall be entered against Felicia Parks
in the amount of $2,297.27.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4