Pacific Hospital of Long Beach v. Lackner

California Court of Appeal Mar 9, 1979 No. Civ. 53397Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a hospital 'acquired' a capital improvement for purposes of the Health and Planning Act when it entered into a final and enforceable agreement to obtain the equipment, regardless of when possession or payment occurred. Because the hospital's rights were fixed by contract prior to the statute's effective date, the permit requirement was inapplicable.

Issues

Whether a hospital 'acquired' a capital improvement prior to the effective date of a statute when the contract was signed but possession and payment were deferred.
Whether a judgment must be reversed due to inconsistent findings of fact when one of the findings is unsupported by the record.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A lessee, or a purchaser, has “acquired” property as soon as his right to it has become fixed by a final and enforceable agreement.”

“The hospital “acquired” the scanner when Nuclear agreed to deliver it and the hospital agreed to pay the agreed consideration.”

“Where one of the two inconsistent findings is without support in the record, an appellate court will strike the unsupported finding and, if the other finding supports the judgment, will affirm.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

The Director of the Department, of Health and the department appeal from a summaiy judgment against them in an action involving the Health and Planning Act adopted in 1976.

We affirm the judgment.

On August 5, 1976, petitioner hospital entered into an agreement to acquire the use of a nuclear full-body scanner. Admittedly, the value of that scanner exceeded $500,000. On September 9, 1976, the statute in question came into force. In general, the statute required that no future acquisition of a capital improvement exceeding in value $500,000 could be undertaken except under a permit issued by the department. The present case involves the application of that statute to the transaction herein involved. The department denied a permit; the judgment herein appealed from adjudicated, on a cause of action for declaratory judgment, the statute was inapplicable. We affirm that decision.

In its appeal, appellant contends: (1) that the agreement was a lease or an agreement comparable to a lease, within the meaning of section 437.10 of the statute; (2) that the hospital had not acquired the scanner prior to the effective date of the act; and (3) that findings of fact made by the trial court are so inconsistent as to require a reversal. Since we conclude that the second and third contentions are without merit, we need not, and do not, determine the correctness of the first contention.

Under the terms of the agreement herein involved, a corporation known as Nuclear Medical Services, Inc., (Nuclear) agreed to provide a

[297]

nuclear full-body scanner and the hospital agreed to install the scanner in its hospital and operate it for a period of seven years, dividing equally any profits from the operation. By its terms, the agreement was cancellable by either party on certain conditions, in which case the hospital was required to pay to Nuclear 50 percent of any then outstanding costs to Nuclear regarding the scanner.

Nuclear purchased the scanner from its manufacturer on September 8, 1976, and it was thereafter delivered to the hospital. The necessary construction work involved in its installation was thereafter completed by the hospital

Pacific Hospital of Long Beach v. Lackner

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief