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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT