## Facts

- Mary Dobos was hospitalized with an abdominal aneurysm; her physician ordered around-the-clock nursing care.
- Nursing Care Services, Inc. provided private-duty nursing in three periods: two weeks in the hospital, 48 hours immediately after discharge, and two weeks of in-home care.
- The total bill for services was $3,723.90.
- At trial, the reasonableness of the fee, the nurses’ competence, and the medical necessity of the services were not contested.
- Dobos conceded that she or her daughter authorized the 48-hour post-discharge care, but disputed liability for the in-hospital and in-home periods.
- Dobos asserted she did not sign a contract or orally agree to pay, and believed the care was required by doctors and might be covered by Medicare.
- It was undisputed that Dobos was mentally alert during the at-home period and did not attempt to dismiss the nurses.

## Issues

1. Whether a nursing-care provider may recover the reasonable value of necessary services under quasi-contract when the patient did not expressly agree to pay.
2. Whether the officious-intermeddler rule bars recovery for services furnished without request, or whether an emergency-necessity exception and later acceptance of benefits permits restitution.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment insofar as it denied recovery for the in-hospital and in-home services.
- The court agreed no express contract or contract implied in fact was proved.
- The court held the record supported recovery under a contract implied in law to prevent unjust enrichment.
- The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment awarding the provider the full reasonable value of the services (beyond the amount already awarded), plus appropriate interest and costs.

## Legal Principles

- A contract implied in law (quasi-contract) imposes an obligation to pay to prevent unjust enrichment, even without actual assent.
- Under the officious-intermeddler rule, a person who supplies unrequested services generally cannot recover merely because the services benefited the recipient.
- An exception permits restitution for necessary services provided to prevent serious bodily harm when the recipient cannot effectively consent at the time.
- Continued acceptance of medically necessary services without objection once the recipient is competent supports restitution for their reasonable value.

## Conclusion

The court required payment in restitution for medically necessary nursing services provided during a serious medical condition and accepted without termination once the patient was competent, because allowing the patient to retain the benefit without paying would unjustly enrich her despite the absence of an express contract.


Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1980)