The background. Section 46b-37 (b) of the Connecticut General Statutes makes each spouse liable for certain expenses incurred by the other. One sub-section of the statute expressly includes “hospital expenses”. Another sub-section of the statute expressly includes “an article purchased by either which has in fact gone to the support of the family or for the joint benefit of both.” What does this mean if one spouse is in a nursing home? Is the other spouse responsible for the cost of care because of the Connecticut statute?
The case. Carmen Coratolo was admitted to Wilton Meadows Rehabilitation and Health Care on August 14, 2006 for long term care services. The cost of his care was covered by Medicaid beginning on March 8, 2007 but until then there was no insurance coverage or other source of payment for his care. The cost of his care between August 14,2006 and March 8, 2007 was $60,795.32.
Wilton Meadows sued Sally Coratolo, Mr. Coratolo’s wife, pursuant to Section 46b-37 (b) (4) of the Connecticut General Statutes. It claimed that Mrs. Coratolo was responsible for the cost of her husband’s care as ”an article purchased by either which has in fact gone to the support of the family or for the joint benefit of both.”
The Connecticut Supreme Court, in an opinion reported on February 1, 2011 and found at 299 Conn. 819 (see link) concluded that Section 46b-37 (b) (4) could not serve as a basis for imposing liability on Mrs. Coratolo. Noting that the statute is contrary to the common law, and, therefore, must be strictly construed, the Supreme Court first said the plain meaning of the word “article” refers to a “tangible item and excludes the plaintiff’s care and services” (p.827).
The Court went further, however, and examined whether the word “article” in the statute could be interpreted to include “food, medicine or many other items that are associated with nursing home care” (p.827). Here, too, the Court concluded that the statute does not permit such an interpretation. In reaching its conclusion the Court was influenced by the Connecticut Patients’ Bill of Rights found at Section 19a-550 Conn. Gen. Stats. (see link). In part, the Patients’ Bill of Rights expressly prohibits a nursing home from requiring a third person to guarantee the cost of a resident’s care in a nursing home. The Court also was influenced by the fact that the spousal liability statute had been amended on several occasions but without adding “nursing home expenses”.
It is important to note that the claim of Wilton Meadows was based on the part of the statute that holds a spouse liable for “an article purchased by either which has in fact gone to the support of the family or for the joint benefit of both.” Although Wilton Meadows later asserted that spousal liability should attach because a nursing home provides the same type of care as a hospital, it did not make that assertion in a timely manner. For that reason, the Court said “We therefore do not address the specific issue of whether ‘hospital expenses’ include nursing home expenses.” (p.824)
The future. Nursing homes continue to look for all sources of potential payment for the cost of care. The Wilton Meadows case specifically declined to address whether “nursing home expenses” are included as part of “hospital expenses” because that issue was not raised in a timely manner. Therefore, that prong of the statute remains open as a potential source of authority for a nursing home to attempt to impose liability on the non-resident spouse. One also assumes that the Connecticut Association of Healthcare Facilities will lobby mightily to amend the statute to expressly include nursing home expenses.