MARY ABRAYTIS v. PORTER HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a PORTER HOSPITAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Dec 16 2021, 8:59 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Mary Abraytis Valparaiso, Indiana Robert W. Smith Highland, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Mary Abraytis, December 16, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-SC-1721 v. Appeal from the Porter Superior Court Porter Hospital, LLC d/b/a/ Porter Hospital The Honorable Jeffrey L. Thode, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 64D06-2012-SC-2496 Altice, Judge. Case Summary [1] Mary Abraytis appeals, pro se, from the entry of a small claims judgment entered against her for unpaid medical services that she incurred following an emergency room (ER) visit to Porter Hospital. She fails to present cogent Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-SC-1721 | December 16, 2021 Page 1 of 5 argument in support of her appeal or citation to relevant authority, and the judgment is amply supported by the evidence. [2] We affirm. Facts & Procedural History [3] On June 15, 2019, Abraytis presented at Porter Hospital seeking ER services and treatment for a fractured wrist. She verbally consented to treatment and agreed to be responsible to pay any account balance not covered by her insurance in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the hospital. The total charges for Abraytis’s ER visit were $3,066. Porter Hospital submitted the claim to Abraytis’s health insurance carrier, BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois (BCBS). As a result of contractual adjustments between BCBS and Porter Hospital, the bill was reduced to $786.14. BCBS indicated that Abraytis was responsible for this reduced amount because she had yet to meet her annual deductible. Thereafter, Abraytis paid $50 toward the balance due, leaving a balance of $736.14. She made no additional payments, despite demands from Porter Hospital. [4] On December 7, 2020, Porter Hospital filed its notice of claim in Porter Superior Court 3, along with an affidavit of debt. Porter Hospital sought recovery of the unpaid balance of $736.14, as well as pre-judgment interest and court costs. A small claims bench trial was held on July 1, 2021. Thereafter, on July 15, 2021, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Porter Hospital in the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-SC-1721 | December 16, 2021 Page 2 of 5 amount of $736.14 plus court costs. The trial court explained its reasoning as follows: 1. The Defendant received medical services from the Plaintiff and verbally consented to treatment and accepted responsibility for the bill. 2. The Plaintiff did submit a claim to the Defendant’s insurance company and the Explanation of Benefits provides that the amount of $786.14 was owed by the Defendant because the Defendant’s deductible was not met. The Defendant made a direct payment to Porter Hospital reducing the balance owed to $736.14. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 3 at 2. Abraytis now appeals. Discussion & Decision [5] Abraytis’s pro-se arguments attacking the small claims judgment are virtually unintelligible. For example, in her statement of issues, Abraytis asserts: “The Trial Judge detailing and characterizing monetary amounts is without complete certainty and is factually inaccurate. The deliberate defiance of the direct testimony and authority of Mary Abraytis.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. While she appears to claim elsewhere that she was overcharged and should have been granted a hardship request, she provides no legal authority in support of these claims. She also asserts that the trial court improperly “fixated on the term deducible [sic] to confuse the issue.” Id. at 6. Further, Abraytis asserts, with no analysis, that the trial court “is due administrative review for accepting unlawfully obtained evidences.” Id. at 12. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-SC-1721 | December 16, 2021 Page 3 of 5 [6] Abraytis has waived review of her claims by failing to provide cogent reasoning supported by relevant legal authority, as required by Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). See Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364-66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (observing that pro-se appellants are held to the same established rules of procedure as trained legal counsel, addressing the requirements of App. R. 46(A), and noting that “[a] party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provided adequate citation to authority and portions of the record”); see also DSG Lake, LLC v. Petalas, 156 N.E.3d 677, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“Mere conclusory arguments do not discharge the appellant’s burden of establishing reversible error.”), trans. denied. [7] Waiver aside, we conclude that the trial court’s findings and judgment are not clearly erroneous. See Ind. Trial Rule 52 (“On appeal of claims tried by the court without a jury … the court on appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.”); see also Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“We will reverse a [small claims] judgment only if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached the opposite conclusion.”). Porter Hospital established below that Abraytis obtained emergency medical services and agreed, at the time, to be responsible for payment of any account balance not covered by insurance in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the hospital. After contractual insurance adjustments and $50 in payments by Abraytis, she owed Porter Hospital $736.14, none of which was paid by BCBS because Abraytis had not Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-SC-1721 | December 16, 2021 Page 4 of 5 met her annual deductible. The trial court properly entered judgment in favor of Porter Hospital in this amount. [8] Judgment affirmed. Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-SC-1721 | December 16, 2021 Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.