Next Up in the 'Tort War': Discounted Medical Expenses?
We recently blogged here about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats.
In a long-awaited, and nearly unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court has held that an injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private health insurance may recover as economic damages no more than the amounts paid by the plaintiff’s insurer for those medical services, and that this discounted amount does not fall within the collateral source rule.
Dan Walters in a recent Sacramento Bee post, 'Tort war' could hit the California Capitol is wondering if the trial attorneys will take this loss lying down:
The issue in the case (Howell v. Hamilton Meats) was whether the injured party could collect the full medical bills imposed by doctors, hospitals and other medical care providers, or would be limited to the amounts actually paid by insurers, which are often pennies on the dollar.
The case, stemming from a 2005 collision in San Diego County, involved $200,000 in medical bills that were whittled down to $60,000 before payment.
The trial judge decreed that only the smaller amount need be paid, while an appellate court said it should be the full amount, and several other pending cases had conflicting appellate court decisions, so the issue was kicked upstairs to the Supreme Court.
Its widely watched ruling hit personal injury lawyers in their wallets but elated insurers, who had said an adverse outcome would have cost them, and their policyholders, another $3 billion a year. (emphasis added)
The legislature has just returned to Sacramento, and, according to Mr. Walters, the “Consumer Attorneys of California, the lobbying arm of personal injury lawyers, has made no secret that it wants legislation to counteract the Supreme Court decree.”
We’ll keep you posted if and when legislation is introduced.
