Anita Hendricks-Pearce, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dewell W. Pearce, Appellant v. — Fabe, J…

Summary

Justice Fabe, joined by Justice Maassen, dissented from the plurality's interpretation of the statute governing prisoners' medical-care expenses. The dissent would have held that a prisoner without an enumerated collateral source is personally liable for in-house care provided by the Department of Corrections, but not for care rendered by outside providers. Because the court was evenly divided, the superior court's ruling was affirmed without precedential effect; the dissent would have reversed and remanded.