Galler L
Am J Law Med. 1982 Spring;8(1):69-86.
The federal Truth in Lending Act requires creditors to comply with complex disclosure requirements whenever they engage in consumer credit transactions. In light of procedures adopted by hospitals and health care professionals which permit payment for services over time, there is some question as to whether these groups may be considered creditors within the meaning of the Act and therefore subject to the Act's disclosure requirements. In Bright v. Ball Memorial Hospital, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that a hospital can be a creditor with respect to certain hospital-patient transactions. However, the court found that the defendant had not consummated consumer credit transactions with the plaintiffs and consequently had not violated the Act by failing to make disclosures. This Case Comment contends that although the court correctly determined that a hospital, in certain circumstances, may be subject to the Act, it incorrectly held that Ball Memorial failed to consummate consumer credit transactions with the plaintiffs. This Case Comment also discusses the circumstances under which a hospital should be considered a creditor for purposes of the Truth in Lending Act and recommends that hospitals offering installment payment plans routinely comply with disclosure requirements of the Act.
联邦《贷款真实性法》要求债权人在进行任何消费者信贷交易时，都要遵守复杂的披露要求。鉴于医院和医疗保健专业人员所采用的允许分期支付服务费的程序，对于这些群体是否可被视为该法案意义上的债权人，进而是否应遵守该法案的披露要求，存在一些疑问。在“布莱特诉鲍尔纪念医院案”中，美国第七巡回上诉法院得出结论，医院在某些医患交易中可以成为债权人。然而，法院认定被告与原告之间并未完成消费者信贷交易，因此未因未进行披露而违反该法案。本案例评论认为，尽管法院正确地判定在某些情况下医院可能受该法案约束，但却错误地认定鲍尔纪念医院与原告之间未完成消费者信贷交易。本案例评论还讨论了在哪些情况下医院应被视为《贷款真实性法》意义上的债权人，并建议提供分期付款计划的医院常规性地遵守该法案的披露要求。
