Taylor suffered a ruptured disc during an automobile accident. On October 26, 1994, he underwent surgery at
Question:
Taylor suffered a ruptured disc during an automobile accident. On October 26, 1994, he underwent surgery at Louisiana State University Medical Center (LSUMC). After surgery, Taylor began to experience numbness and difficulty moving his lower extremities. An emergency surgery was performed to correct these problems. The procedure was unsuccessful, and Taylor's condition deteriorated to quadriplegia and he eventually became ventilator dependent. Taylor was treated at LSUMC until January 1 1995, at which time he was transferred to LifeCare Hospital, as a Medicaid patient, for long-term rehabilitation treatment. Taylor remained at LifeCare until his death on May 22, 1995. Taylor's family-plaintiffs filed suit for damages. A medical review panel determined that LSUMC breached the applicable standard of care by failing to conduct or record neurological checks from the end of the first surgery until over three hours later. The plaintiffs and LSUMC reached a partial settlement for $630,000. The settlement did not include the plaintiffs' claim for medical expenses contractually written off by LifeCare pursuant to Medicaid requirements. Evidence showed that Taylor's medical expenses at LifeCare totaled $1,110,922.82 and that Medicaid paid LifeCare
$164,084.82. The difference of $946,838 was contractually written off by Life-Care as required by Medicaid. Because LifeCare accepted Taylor as a Medicaid patient, LifeCare was required by both federal and state law to accept the Medicaid payment as payment in full and was prohibited from collecting further payment from Taylor. The plaintiffs relying upon the collateral source rule claimed that contractually adjusted medical expenses are an item of damages to which they are entitled.
The collateral source rule prevents a wrongdoer from reducing its financial responsibility for the injuries it causes by the amount an injured party receives from outside sources. Payments from outside sources are those unrelated to the wrongdoer, like health or disability insurance, for which the injured party has already paid premiums or taxes. The rule also prevents juries from learning about such collateral payments, so as not to unfairly influence the verdict. States that have modified this rule have either completely repealed it, mandating that payments received from health insurance, social security or other sources be used to reduce the wrongdoer's liability. Or, they allow juries to hear during trial about collateral payments.
For example, in a lawsuit on personal injury, the one being accused cannot show paid medical bills (that were paid by medical insurance) as proof that payment has been made for part of the damages being paid against him. When the court awards the complainant with a specified amount in damages (for issues such as accident, illness, injury and sickness), the plaintiff cannot use other financial sources such as Disability Income Insurance, Workers' Compensation and Health Insurance.
In other words, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages that include amounts for which the plaintiff has already received compensation from sources independent or and collateral to the defendant tort-feasor. Accordingly, defendants may not introduce evidence that plaintiffs have access to insurance benefits, or to other benefits through their employment or have received gifts from independent third-parties, all of which may be used by plaintiffs to offset their personal losses resulting from the defendant's negligent conduct.
Based on your readings of the statutes and general intuition, discuss your opinion of collateral source rule by answering the following questions:
- Are you in favor or against this collateral source rule?
- Do you feel that the court should have awarded Taylor's family for medical expenses that was paid for by Medicaid? Keep in mind that the collateral source rule allows full payment for damages/medical expenses even though the medical bills are paid by insurance etc. The statute is pretty clear that the judgment should not be reduced by "Retirement, disability or pension plan benefits."
- What's your verdict?
Introduction To Logic
ISBN: 9781138500860
15th Edition
Authors: Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Victor Rodych