Insurance — Hospital expenses — Facilities supplied by nonprofit corporation for emotionally disturbed children — Evidence — Definition of hospital.
1. In an action on an insurance policy, the policy provided: "The term `hospital' means only an institution which is engaged primarily in providing, for compensation from its patients, facilities for diagnosis and treatment of bed patients under the supervision of a staff of doctors and which provides the services of registered nurses (R.N.) 24 hours a day. Sanitoriums for care and treatment of tuberculosis and of mental, psychoneurotic, and personality disorders are included if they meet these requirements.". Plaintiff's son was a resident at a facility operated by a nonprofit corporation for emotionally disturbed children. During this period the boy received specific medical and psychiatric treatment, the purpose of which was to so reduce his disability as to enable him to live outside an institution providing custodial care. The court below, held that the facility of the nonprofit corporation was a "hospital" within the meaning of the insurance policy, and found for plaintiff.
It was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
2. In such case, contentions by defendant insurer that (a) the institution did not provide "facilities for diagnosis and treatment", (b) that the institution was not a hospital because it did not contain surgical, laboratory, and x-ray facilities, and other equipment for the treatment of physical illnesses, (c) that a hospital within the meaning of the policy was restricted to institutions which treat persons who suffer from a physical or mental disability of such severity that their confinement to a bed is to be expected, (d) that the institution was not under the supervision of a staff of doctors and did not have a medical doctor in residence, (e) that the institution did not meet the requirements of providing the services of registered nurses 24 hours a day, and (f) that the institution was simply a boarding school or educational institution, were Held by the court below, in the circumstances, to be without merit.
Argued March 23, 1966.
OPINION PER CURIAM, April 26, 1966:
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge CHARLES A. WATERS for the court below, reported at 39 Pa. D. C. 2d 1.