In re Smith v. Jeppsen 2012CO32 (April 30,2012)

As the healthcare debate rages, a central question is over the actual cost of medical care. Courts also try to determine the reasonable value of medical services provided to an accident victim. That value is either justice for victims or double recovery, depending on your perspective. The collateral source rule, now a statute rather than a common-law doctrine, attempts to balance those competing interests by restricting the evidence considered before a damage award, and then subtracting actual payments after the award. But what evidence should be considered before the award? The amounts billed or the amounts actually paid, or both? A divided Court answered by looking to the collateral source statute, and held the Legislature answered by picking the amount billed, but not actually paid. In this case, the relatively new statute applied prospectively, but pre-verdict.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA51.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8503&courtid=2

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Evidence, Personal Injury, Torts

One response to “In re Smith v. Jeppsen 2012CO32 (April 30,2012)

  1. In a companion case, Wal-Mart v. Cossgrove 2012CO31, issued the same day, the common law collateral source rule is examined and applied to reach essentially the same conclusion.

    Like

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s