IN Court Holds Parents Liable For Child's Medical Bill Despite Religious Objections

In Schmidt v. Mutual Hospital Services, Inc., decided Wednesday, an Indiana state Court of Appeals held that parents are liable for over $171,000 in medical incurred in the treatment of their daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit, even though the parents had informed the hospital that they had religious objections to the medical treatment and would not pay for treatment given without their consent. The court found that the baby's initial treatment was emergency in nature, and that the parents were therefore liable for its costs. But that the hospital continued after the emergency passed to treat the infant over the parents' religious objections and without obtaining a court order. Nevertheless, the court held that the parents' failure to demand the child's release after the initial emergency, and their failure to themselves seek a court order to stop the treatment, operated as tacit consent to the treatment. Their religious objections did not negate their obligation to provide and pay for necessary medical care for their child. A concurring opinion argued that all the care the infant received was emergency care for which the parents were responsible.