## Facts

- Harun Fountain, an unemancipated minor, suffered a gunshot wound to the head and required extensive emergency, lifesaving medical care, including radiology services provided by Yale Diagnostic Radiology.
- Yale billed Fountain’s mother, Vernetta Turner-Tucker, $17,694 for its services; the bill was not paid.
- Yale obtained a collection judgment against Turner-Tucker, and her personal liability on that debt was later discharged in bankruptcy.
- Turner-Tucker, acting for Fountain, pursued a tort claim against the shooter and obtained a settlement that included damages based in part on medical expenses; the proceeds were placed in Fountain’s estate under Probate Court supervision.
- After the settlement, Yale filed a proof of claim and sought distribution from Fountain’s estate for the unpaid bill; the Probate Court denied relief.
- On appeal, the Superior Court sustained Yale’s appeal and ordered payment from the estate; the estate and fiduciary appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a provider of emergency medical services may recover the reasonable value of necessary medical care from an unemancipated minor (through the minor’s estate) when the minor’s parents refuse or are unable to pay.
2. Whether Connecticut statutes assigning parents primary responsibility for a child’s necessaries abrogate the common-law doctrine imposing secondary, quasi-contractual liability on the minor.
3. Whether a parent’s bankruptcy discharge of personal liability prevents a provider from enforcing the minor’s separate secondary obligation for necessaries against the minor’s estate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment ordering payment to Yale from Fountain’s estate.
- The court held Connecticut recognizes the common-law doctrine of necessaries as applied to minors.
- Under that doctrine, parents bear primary responsibility for necessaries, but the minor is secondarily liable in quasi-contract for the reasonable value of necessary medical services when parents default.
- The parent’s bankruptcy discharge did not extinguish the minor’s separate implied-in-law obligation because the minor and estate were not debtors in the bankruptcy.
- Allowing the estate to retain tort-settlement funds calculated in part on medical expenses while leaving the provider unpaid would produce unjust enrichment.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of necessaries for minors; necessary medical services may be recovered in quasi-contract from the minor when the parents do not pay.
- When necessaries are provided to a minor, the law treats the arrangement as involving a primary obligation of the parents and a separate implied-in-law obligation of the minor that is enforceable upon parental default.
- Providers must make reasonable efforts to collect from the parents before resorting to the minor’s secondary liability.
- Statutes imposing parental responsibility for a child’s necessary expenses do not eliminate the common-law rule permitting secondary liability of the minor for necessaries.
- A bankruptcy discharge of a parent’s personal liability does not bar enforcement of the minor’s independent quasi-contractual obligation for necessaries against the minor’s estate.

## Conclusion

The court held that emergency medical providers may recover the reasonable value of necessary services from an unemancipated minor’s estate when the parents have defaulted, and that statutory parental responsibility and a parent’s bankruptcy discharge do not eliminate the minor’s secondary, implied-in-law liability for necessaries.


Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of Fountain, 267 Conn. 351, 838 A.2d 179 (Conn. 2004)