Utah Court of Appeals hears dispute over anesthesia billing in Mead Recovery Services v. Davidson

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument Tuesday in Mead Recovery Services v. Davidson, a dispute over whether a post-surgery anesthesia consent agreement and insurers' handling of claims relieved the patient of liability for unpaid anesthesia charges.

Ronald Deating, attorney for defendant-appellant Jordan Davidson, told the three-judge panel that the contract language and the insurance policy evidence show Davidson had coverage and that the district court should have entered summary judgment for her. "This is a case that concerns facts which are largely not in dispute and well settled law," Deating said. He argued the consent agreement must be read so its sentences are construed harmoniously and that the district court's later reliance on a "failure to pay" clause made other contract language surplusage.

Jonathan Jenkins, counsel for Mead Recovery Services (the provider), told the court that the agreement places responsibility on the patient for charges not covered by insurance and separately obligates the patient to pay in the event of a failure to pay. "If medical providers and physicians are unable to get payment for the services rendered, they will naturally be forced to demand payment…