380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
Nursing Care Services v. Dobos is a leading modern authority on restitution for emergency medical services rendered without the recipient's consent.
Can a medical services provider recover in restitution for the reasonable value of necessary nursing services furnished without the patient's consent when the patient was incapacitated and unable to contract at the time the services were rendered?
A person who supplies necessary services to another for the purpose of preventing the other from suffering serious bodily harm or pain is entitled to restitution for their reasonable value, even if supplied without the other's knowledge or consent, when: (1) the actor acted unofficiously and with an intent to charge; (2) the services were necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or pain; (3) the actor had no reason to know the recipient would refuse if competent; and (4) the recipient was unable to consent because of incapacity or it was otherwise impracticable to obtain consent. See Restatement (First) of Restitution § 116.
Yes. The court recognized a cause of action for restitution under Restatement § 116 for necessary medical services rendered without consent to an incapacitated patient and held that the provider may recover the reasonable value of such services if the elements are met. The appellate court reversed the judgment that denied recovery based solely on lack of an express contract and remanded for application of the § 116 criteria.
Nursing Care Services v. Dobos is a cornerstone case for quasi-contract in emergency medical contexts. It clarifies that restitution—not contract—is the proper framework when consent is unavailable, sets out the controlling elements from Restatement § 116, and cabins recovery to necessary, non-officious interventions. For students, the case illustrates the difference between implied-in-fact agreements and obligations implied in law, the policy justifications for emergency restitution, and the safeguards against opportunistic interventions. It is frequently paired with cases like Cotnam v. Wisdom and later authorities to teach the doctrinal architecture of emergency aid and unjust enrichment.