# Missouri: husband responsible for wife's medical bills? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 5, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900 "2014-08-05T21:59:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/1 "2014-08-05T21:59:19Z")
In the early 90s my wife racked up some serious medical bills. WHen the bills came, they were sent to me…not her. When I called to correct this, I was told Missouri law requires that the husband be responsible for the wife’s medical bills. Pissed us both off. Note that this isn’t the wife is responsible for the husband’s medical bills, or that both people in the couple are jointly responsible for the medical bills of each. It was clearly the wife’s bills are sent to the husband, because he is responsible for his her medical bills. It was simply an antiquated sexist policy that relegated the woman to a second class status of being treated like a minor child. Can anyone tell me if this policy is still in place, or has it been changed in the last few years. I was shocked to find out it was still going on in the 90’s. The health system I was dealing with told me clearly that it was Missouri Law. On edit She was on her own medical insurance too, not on mine ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/2 "2014-08-05T22:15:41Z")
Just curious if it was addressed Mr. (what your name is), or just what your name is? In ‘conventional’ marriage at the time the wife willingly takes the husband’s name so a bill to your name would classically be a bill to both without demoting anyone to a child status. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/3 "2014-08-05T22:22:30Z")
The bills were addressed to me by First and Last name; I don’t recall they even had a Mr. on them just First Last xxxxx xxxxxxx Missouri zipxx Note that when I called and complained, I was told the woman wasn’t responsible for her medical bills, the husband was. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/4 "2014-08-05T22:52:36Z")
I don’t have my google-fu right now, but it is the law in many (a few?) states that spouses are responsible for each other’s “necessities” of which medical bills would be included. I would think that any law which provided that only the husband is responsible for the wife (and not equally vice versa) would be held to be unconstitutional or at least reframed so that all spouses are responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/5 "2014-08-05T23:08:02Z")
I would have expected so back then even. But it wasn’t the case. I’m just wondering if it is still the situation now. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/6 "2014-08-05T23:17:19Z")
I guess they showed you! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/7 "2014-08-05T23:19:08Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Just curious if it was addressed Mr. (what your name is), or just what your name is? > > In ‘conventional’ marriage at the time the wife willingly takes the husband’s name so a bill to your name would classically be a bill to both without demoting anyone to a child status. I don’t get what you mean here. If Mary Smith (John Smith’s wife) goes to a doctor who then sends the bill to “Mr. Smith,” that would seem to be demoting Mary to being John’s dependent. Or am I misunderstanding your point? ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/8 "2014-08-06T00:40:51Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > The bills were addressed to me by First and Last name; I don’t recall they even had a Mr. on them just > > First Last > xxxxx > xxxxxxx Missouri zipxx > Note that when I called and complained, I was told the woman wasn’t responsible for her medical bills, the husband was. Could it be because your employer was providing the medical insurance. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/9 "2014-08-06T00:41:57Z")
If I’m understanding you correctly , it was a clerk in the hospital billing office who told you this. One who almost certainly isn’t a lawyer, who wouldn’t necessarily know if court decisions have changed the interpretation of a law that says “husbands are responsible for wives” to " spouses are responsible for each other" ,who may be loath to admit that the bill was addressed incorrectly and who really just wants somebody, anybody to pay the bill. I’m pretty sure most states (probably all) changed those laws to be gender-neutral by the '90s. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/10 "2014-08-06T00:43:35Z")
I found [this](http://hoorfarlaw.com/blog/?p=1608) Missouri law office talking about the doctrine of necessaries. [Here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1649103.html) is the actual case they’re talking about. Short version, it was ruled that he had to pay her bills, but the appeals court found that the hospital couldn’t prove the medical procedures were necessary so they reversed the decision to make him pay. Buried inside is this gem: \*Although Husband strongly urged at oral argument that the doctrine of necessaries is anachronistic and should be abolished, we are an error-correcting court, not a policy-making court, see State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Mo. banc 2008) (Wolff concurring opinion), and “[t]he common law doctrine of necessaries is the law in Missouri. Medical Servs. Ass’n v. Perry, 819 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.W.D.1991). \*\*Historically, the doctrine required only a husband to pay the necessary expenses of his wife, but the doctrine is now applied in a gender-neutral fashion. \*_St Luke’s Episcopal–Presbyterian Hosp. v. Underwood, 957 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Mo.App.E.D.1997) (case reversed for new trial concerning wife’s liability for husband’s medical expenses). Because Husband was not a party to the contract embodied in the consent forms, the doctrine of necessaries requires Hospital to “establish that the services [provided to Wife] were necessary in order to hold [Husband] liable for payment for such services.” Id._ ETA: That doesn’t say when the law was changed, but what you were told was apparently true at some point. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/11 "2014-08-06T01:03:07Z")
> [@Lord\_Mondegreen](#): > > I don’t get what you mean here. If Mary Smith (John Smith’s wife) goes to a doctor who then sends the bill to “Mr. Smith,” that would seem to be demoting Mary to being John’s dependent. Or am I misunderstanding your point? As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill. So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/12 "2014-08-06T01:08:17Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > \*\*Historically, the doctrine required only a husband to pay the necessary expenses of his wife, but the doctrine is now applied in a gender-neutral fashion. \*_St Luke’s Episcopal–Presbyterian Hosp. v. Underwood, 957 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Mo.App.E.D.1997) (case reversed for new trial concerning wife’s liability for husband’s medical expenses). > …_ > > ETA: That doesn’t say when the law was changed, but what you were told was apparently true at some point. Well duh, if I had continued to read the next sentence, it seems to have changed in 1997. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/13 "2014-08-06T01:21:13Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > As I understand it, after marriage, if the wife takes the husband’s name ‘John Smith’ becomes a joint name, Mr John Smith and Mrs John Smith are the individual names classically speaking, and why I asked if Mr was included in the bill. > > So yes, if it was to Mr Smith that would indicate that they man is responsible for the woman, but John Smith could indicate a classical joint marriage name. Nope. “Mr and Mrs John Smith” means John Smith and his wife who I can’t be bothered to name or whose name I possibly don’t know (and it means that even if she has retained her maiden name). But “John Smith” always means just John Smith. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/14 "2014-08-06T11:44:26Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Nope. “Mr and Mrs John Smith” means John Smith and his wife who I can’t be bothered to name or whose name I possibly don’t know (and it means that even if she has retained her maiden name). But “John Smith” always means just John Smith. Actually, kanicbird is quite correct. Until recent decades, in many parts of the English-speaking world, it was common to refer to married woman with the form “Mrs. John Smith” even without mentioning their husband. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/15 "2014-08-06T11:50:45Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > Actually, kanicbird is quite correct. Until recent decades, in many parts of the English-speaking world, it was common to refer to married woman with the form “Mrs. John Smith” even without mentioning their husband. That’s not what kancibird’s saying though. We all agree that: Mr John Smith is the husband Mrs John smith is the wife He’s saying that simply John Smith (no title) could refer to either of them. I’ve never seen that, but I can’t say either way. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/16 "2014-08-06T11:51:14Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > Actually, kanicbird is quite correct. Until recent decades, in many parts of the English-speaking world, it was common to refer to married woman with the form “Mrs. John Smith” even without mentioning their husband. Yes, but plain old “John Smith”, with no Mr. or Mrs. always referred to the husband. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/17 "2014-08-06T11:52:13Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > Actually, kanicbird is quite correct. Until recent decades, in many parts of the English-speaking world, it was common to refer to married woman with the form “Mrs. John Smith” even without mentioning their husband. An anachronistic practice, still carried out by a few. It infuriates my wife to be addressed as Mrs Bob++ She also hates the soubriquet ‘Ms’. ---
**Author:** ![VunderBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/839c29/32.png) [@VunderBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VunderBob)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/18 "2014-08-06T11:54:07Z")
My wife’s bills come to me, regardless of the state we’re living in. I hold the health insurance policy, and sign the paperwork as the responsible party. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/19 "2014-08-06T11:59:42Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > I found [this](http://hoorfarlaw.com/blog/?p=1608) Missouri law office talking about the doctrine of necessaries. [Here](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1649103.html) is the actual case they’re talking about. Short version, it was ruled that he had to pay her bills, but the appeals court found that the hospital couldn’t prove the medical procedures were necessary so they reversed the decision to make him pay. > > Buried inside is this gem: > > \*Although Husband strongly urged at oral argument that the doctrine of necessaries is anachronistic and should be abolished, we are an error-correcting court, not a policy-making court, see State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Mo. banc 2008) (Wolff concurring opinion), and “[t]he common law doctrine of necessaries is the law in Missouri. Medical Servs. Ass’n v. Perry, 819 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.W.D.1991). \*\*Historically, the doctrine required only a husband to pay the necessary expenses of his wife, but the doctrine is now applied in a gender-neutral fashion. \*_St Luke’s Episcopal–Presbyterian Hosp. v. Underwood, 957 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Mo.App.E.D.1997) (case reversed for new trial concerning wife’s liability for husband’s medical expenses). Because Husband was not a party to the contract embodied in the consent forms, the doctrine of necessaries requires Hospital to “establish that the services [provided to Wife] were necessary in order to hold [Husband] liable for payment for such services.” Id._ > > ETA: That doesn’t say when the law was changed, but what you were told was apparently true at some point. So this apparently is my answer, first it was actually true. And it was changed in 1997. Thanks for the info! ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900/20 "2014-08-06T12:03:19Z")
> [@VunderBob](#): > > My wife’s bills come to me, regardless of the state we’re living in. I hold the health insurance policy, and sign the paperwork as the responsible party. As I mentioned in my original post. She was on her own medical insurance, not mine. I may have understood the reasoning if that was the case; but it wasn’t. We were essentially told (for real, not hyperbole), that since the wife, as a woman, would be unable to care for herself, the husband was the responsible party. I’m glad it has changed, I wish it were changed earlier. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/missouri-husband-responsible-for-wifes-medical-bills/694900.md?page=2)