Claude Wilson Gordon v. Forsyth Cnty. Hosp. Auth., Inc., 544 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Claude Wilson Gordon v. Forsyth Cnty. Hosp. Auth., Inc., 544 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Falmouth Hospital v. Lopes (mass, 1978-11-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Falmouth Hospital v. Lopes (2×)
Mass. · 1978 · confidence medium
Id., 544 F.2d 748, 749 (4th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Caroline C. v. Johnson (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D. Neb. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 708, 717 (M.D.N.C.), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 544 F.2d 748 (4th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see" Newsom v. Vanderbilt University (2×)
6th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon, supra, 544 F.2d at 749 (plaintiffs' claims were denied for failure to exhaust; court of appeals remanded claims after plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies while appeal was pending). 15 Comity is not an applicable doctrine here.
cited Cited "see" Dark v. Prince George's County
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 708, 722 (M.D.N.C. 1976), aff'd in part, vac. in part, 544 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. 1976); 18 John T.
discussed Cited "see" Newsom v. Vanderbilt University (2×)
6th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon, supra, 544 F.2d at 749 (plaintiffs’ claims were denied for failure to exhaust; court of appeals remanded claims after plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies while appeal was pending).
discussed Cited "see" Opinion No. Oag 7-81, (1981)
Wis. Att'y Gen. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. , 409 F. Supp. at 721 , 722 (M.D.N.C. 1976), affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded , 544 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. 1976); Lugo , 453 F. Supp. at 684 ; Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Matthews , 32 Conn. Supp. 539 , 343 A.2d 661 (1974), cert. denied , 341 A.2d 432 (1975), cert. denied , 423 U.S. 1024 (1975) (hospital's failure to satisfy Hill-Burton assurance may not be raised by an individual as a defense against hospital's collection action).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Reed
Kan. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. 3d 844, 848 , 510 N.E.2d 99 (1987) (hospital’s advance to private duty nurses for patient’s benefit recoverable under hospital lien act); Broadlawns, Etc. v. Estate of Major, 271 N.W.2d 714, 715-16 (Iowa 1978) (hospital not liable for estate’s attorney fees in connection with successful wrongful death claim against third party; proceeds of claim used to satisfy hospital’s lien); see also Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 708, 719 (M.D.N.C. 1976) (unconscionable to permit taxpayers to bear expense of providing free medical care to patient, then allow p…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Claude Wilson GORDON Et Al., Appellants,
v.
FORSYTH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, INC., Et Al., Appellees
76-1228.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 17, 1976.
544 F.2d 748
Bertram Ervin Brown, II, Winston-Salem, N.C. (James C. Gulick, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellants., Roddey M. Ligón, Jr., Winston-Salem, N.C. (Katherine S. Miller, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellees.
Craven, Butzner, Russell.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Indigent claimants appeal the judgment of the district court upholding the manner in which Forsyth Memorial Hospital, a recipient of Hill-Burton funds, furnishes services to indigents. Under § 603(e) of the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291c(e), and the regulations thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 53.111(d), a hospital that provides uncompensated services equal to at least three percent of its operating costs presumptively complies with its assurance to provide a reasonable volume of services to indigents. The statute and regulations, however, do not specify how these funds should be allocated.

The appellants contend that the hospital must provide any services that are medically necessary on a “first come, first served” basis until the funds are depleted. The hospital contends that it may allocate the funds on a priority basis: first, to emergency care, and then, if any funds remain, to urgent medical care, and finally, to elective medical care.

The district court ruled that the hospital’s policy did not violate the statute and the regulations. * We affirm this ruling for the reasons stated by the district court. We add, however, that the law does not mandate the hospital’s present method of priority allocation. Other methods, such as that advocated by the appellants, would also comply.

The district court also denied the claims of the individual plaintiffs for free medical care because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300p-2(c). The parties have stipulated that they have exhausted their administrative remedies pending appeal. Accordingly, without objection by the hospital, we remand these claims to the district court.

The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The hospital shall recover its costs.

*

Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 708 (M.D.N.C.1976).