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

1,309 chars

While a number of courts that have considered the question have ruled that the discounted amounts actually paid are not relevant to or admissible on the issue of the reasonableness of the medical expenses that the plaintiff can recover, there is an increasing number that disagree. I share the view expressed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St. 3d 17 (2006), and the Supreme Court of Indiana in Stanley v. Walker, 906 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2009). The Ohio court held that “[bjoth the original medical bill rendered and the amount accepted as full payment are admissible to prove the reasonableness and necessity of charges rendered for medical and hospital care.” Robinson v. Bates, supra at 23. The court first held that “[t]he collateral-source rule does not apply to write-offs of expenses that are never paid.” Id. at 22. Therefore, “admitting evidence of write-*806offs does not violate the purpose behind the collateral-source rule.” Id. at 23. It then reasoned that “[d]ue to the realities of today’s insurance and reimbursement system, in any given case, the determination [of the reasonable value of medical treatment] is not necessarily the amount of the original bill or the amount paid.[5] Instead, [it] is a matter for the jury to determine from all relevant evidence.” Id.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text