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

1,048 chars

Some of these courts have concluded (as the judge did here) that any discount off of the charges submitted by a medical provider afforded to a plaintiff (or his health care insurer) is itself a form of benefit or compensation provided by a collateral source — either the medical provider or the insurer through its *805discounted payment contract with the provider. See id., and cases cited. Therefore, the argument is made, any discount essentially falls under the substantive component of the collateral source rule and, consistent with the purpose of that rule, cannot be used as a basis to reduce a defendant’s liability to an injured plaintiff. To hold otherwise, these courts conclude, would permit the tortfeasor to reap the benefit of a contract for which the wrongdoer paid no compensation, see Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra, and derogate the “tortfeasor’s responsibility to compensate for all harm that he causes, not confined to the net loss that the injured party receives.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A comment b (1979).

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text