ILNews

Justices split on discounted medical expenses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a ruling about whether insurance discounts can be used to determine reasonable medical expenses, two Indiana Supreme Court justices say their colleagues have created a new rule that is "incomplete, misleading, and unfair" and will add "layers of complexity, time, and expense to personal injury litigation, impairing the efficient administration of justice."

In its 3-2 decision Wednesday afternoon in Brandon Stanley v. Danny Walker, No. 41S01-0810-CV-539, the majority held that those discounted benefits can be used to determine what's reasonable and actually paid by plaintiffs seeking damages for their injuries. That issue gives the court a chance to catch up with the modern managed health-care world.

Justice Frank Sullivan authored the opinion in the Johnson County case regarding a 2004 vehicle accident in which Danny Walker sustained injuries and ultimately received treatment from 11 different medical providers. He filed a negligence complaint against Brandon Stanley to recover incurred medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering; Stanley admitted negligence before trial and the case proceeded on the damages issue.

The injured plaintiff, Walker, introduced medical bills totaling the original billed amount of $11,570; however he didn't show the $4,750 that was ultimately discounted by an agreement between the medical service providers and Walker's health insurer bringing the medical costs for which he and the insurance company were responsible to $6,820.

Disputing the originally billed amount because of the discounts, Stanley asked the trial court to admit the discounted medical bills totaling $6,820 into evidence, but Walker argued that violated Indiana's collateral source statute, Indiana Code § 34-44-1-2, which prohibits the introduction of "insurance benefits" evidence in personal injury cases. The court agreed and didn't allow the evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a decision last year that followed a $70,000 general verdict in Walker's favor.

In its ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court majority affirmed the judgment but remanded for the trial court to reduce the damage award by $4,750. The court noted that if Walker will not accept the reduction, he is free to retry the issue of damages before another jury.

Justice Sullivan adopted the approach in the Ohio Supreme Court decision of Robinson v. Bates, 857 N.E.2d 1195, 1200 (Ohio 2006), which held that a jury may determine the reasonable value of medical services is the amount originally billed, the amount accepted as payment, or some amount in between. That state's common law "collateral source rule" wasn't applicable to discounted bills because they weren't payments from a third party to the plaintiff, the court decided.

"We find this to be the fairest approach; to do otherwise would create separate categories of plaintiffs based on the method used to finance medical expenses," Justice Sullivan wrote, noting that parties can also introduce evidence and witnesses to show billed and paid amounts don't represent the reasonable value.

But Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented, saying the majority's holding contravenes the express requirements of Indiana's collateral source statute and is an "unfair and undesirable judicial policy."

With this rule, juries will receive a "distorted, misleading, and incomplete picture unless they are also able to consider the pecuniary value of all the benefits conferred upon health care providers in their symbiotic exchange with medical insurers," Justice Dickson wrote in his 9-page dissent. "... A new level of discovery will be needed to determine and quantify the value to providers. Plaintiffs will be required to expend considerable resources to marshal and present such evidence, thereby prolonging trials. New appellate issues will result.  ...

"This all seems very unnecessary," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT