SCLS Teams Up With Private Attorney For Victory at the S.C. Court of Appeals

Navigating Medicare and other benefits can be difficult for seniors. This was no more apparent than in a recent SCLS appellate victory over National Healthcare /Mauldin, LLC (NHC) where the S.C. Court of Appeals was asked to reverse a trial court decision against our client Wade Thompson, an elderly, disabled veteran from Anderson County.

In a victory for our client in National Healthcare LLC vs. Wade Thompson, https://www.sccourts.org/opinions//unpublishedopinions/HTMLFiles/COA/2019-UP-378.pdf  SCLS Attorney Susan Ingles[1] and PAI Attorney Sharon Ward[2] teamed up to obtain a reversal of the trial court decision that granted a judgment of $8,869.32 to NHC against Thompson.    The S.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s original judgment that was based on quantum meruit, an equitable doctrine to allow recovery for unjust enrichment.  “A party may be unjustly enriched when it has and retains benefits or money which in justice and equity belong to another.” 

In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that NHC is estopped from seeking recovery from Thompson because it acted with “unclean hands”[3] by admitting Thompson to its care under the assumption of Medicare coverage and then failing to notify Thompson of its own corporate email response stating no benefit days were available to Thompson. 

NHC failed to notify Thompson that his stay at its Mauldin, SC facility would not be covered by Medicare.  The healthcare facility had obtained initial telephone verification of Medicare coverage at the time of admission, but the follow up written verification NHC received less than 24 hours later confirmed the stay would not be covered. Thompson had already exhausted his benefit days under Medicare rules. As a result, Thompson’s subsequent 6-week stay was not paid for by Medicare as NHC personnel assured Thompson when he was admitted. After NHC did not receive the $8,669.32 from Medicare that Thompson unwittingly incurred for six weeks, they filed the debt collection lawsuit against Thompson and his daughter.  The trial court dismissed Thompson’s daughter from the lawsuit and that decision was not appealed by NHC.

In the appeal, NHC argued that Thompson was unjustly enriched by the 6-week stay it provided that Medicare did not pay for. The Court of Appeals held NHC’s failure to tell Thompson of the lack of coverage as soon as it received the written verification constituted unclean hands and held he was only liable for a $630 charge he had already paid.

Ingles and Ward successfully argued that NHC’s failure to notify Thompson that his stay would not be covered was fatal to its claim that he should pay for the stay out of his own pocket.  The S.C. Court of Appeals agreed. Find out more about how to become a PAI Attorney for SCLS and get paid to further our mission of access to justice for all by clicking here https://sclegal.org/pai/ .


[1] A 15 year veteran at SCLS, Ingles is a Senior Staff Attorney and head of the Consumer Unit.

[2] The Private Attorney Involvement (PAI) is funded by SCLS’ grant from the Legal Services Corporation. The collaborative program exists to encourage the involvement of private attorneys like Ward, who previously served as a staff attorney at the S.C. Court of Appeals, in the delivery of legal assistance to eligible legal aid clients

[3] The doctrine of unclean hands precludes a Plaintiff (here NHC) from recovering in equity if it acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant (here Thompson).

Fighting Debt Collection

NOTE: All the names in the article have been changed to protect the parties’ identities.

Tatiana Diaz came to South Carolina Legal Services (SCLS) in full panic mode. A day prior, someone came to her door and handed her a pack of court documents. She was being sued over some money she allegedly owed. Tatiana could not understand anything more than that. Her first thought was to ignore it and hope it goes away. She had heard about SCLS before and now, with nowhere else to turn, she applied for our help in figuring out what was happening.

What was happening was that a debt collection agency filed ten (10) separate lawsuits against Tatiana, trying to collect on debts it claimed she owed. The total amount of debt from all these lawsuits was just over $7,000. Tatiana admitted that she had a credit card that she used and was never able to repay. However, this was years ago, and she did not believe that she owed as much as the agency claimed in the lawsuits.

SCLS accepted Tatiana as a client to try and verify how much she actually owed, and if she did owe a debt, to negotiate a settlement or a payment plan. Tatiana was supporting a family on one income and could not afford to repay the full amount at once. Our first order of business was to file a response to each lawsuit. Failure to respond to a lawsuit can result in losing your chance to dispute the lawsuit. We did not want that.

Once we responded to the lawsuits, the agency would have to show prove that Tatiana owed this debt and how much she owed. Instead, the agency’s attorney reached out to us and offered to dismiss all ten cases based on Tatiana’s low income. The cases were later dismissed, and Tatiana did not have to pay anything.

If you have a debt collection case filed against you, know that you have options. Although an agency will not always be so quick to dismiss, know that an agency must meet certain requirements before the judge allows it to collect from you. First, the creditor has to prove that you owe that debt. Second, the creditor must prove the exact amount that you owe. Finally, the creditor must prove that it has the right to collect on the debt from you. Collection agencies are not always able to prove all these facts and may be willing to dismiss the case or settle for a smaller amount.

Additionally, the creditor may not be able to collect from you if any of the following are true: (1) the debt is too old and the court can no longer enforce it; (2) the debt was a result of mistaken identity or identity theft; (3) the debt has already been paid or discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding; (4) the creditor did not follow proper legal procedure in trying to collect from you. There may be additional defenses available based on your individual situation.

If you have been sued for consumer debt, apply to SCLS to see if you qualify for our legal services. Call us at 1-888-346-5592 or apply online at https://www.lawhelp.org/sc/online-intake.