Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)

Citation: Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)
Parent Document: Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2009-09-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6580039/scott-v-garfield/ ↗

Full Text

963 chars

Just prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine asking the court to allow the jury to consider only the portion of the medical bills that were actually paid by the plaintiff’s health care provider when determining his reasonable medical expenses. The motion was properly denied. See G. L. c. 233, § 79G (medical bills admissible as evidence of fair and reasonable charges). At trial, during the plaintiff’s testimony, the defendants objected to the admission of copies of the plaintiff’s medical bills from which the amounts paid to the hospital and doctors who treated the plaintiff had been redacted, arguing that the amounts actually paid were relevant to the plaintiff’s “credibility” and to his actual damages.1 The judge overruled the objection on the ground that any discounted benefits negotiated by the plaintiff’s health care insurer were essentially a form of third-party benefit, evidence of which is barred by our collateral source rule.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text