COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE REFORM

Reforms Upheld as Constitutional (after 1983)

ALABAMA

Marsh v. Green, 782 So. 2d 223 (Ala. 2000).  The collateral source rule reform in civil tort cases did not violate the right to a trial by jury, or the due process, equal protection, access to courts, or right to a remedy provisions of the State Constitution, or the principle of separation of powers, (overruling American Legion Post No. 57 v. Leahey, 681 So. 2d 1337 (Ala. 1996).

ALASKA

Reid v. Williams, 964 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1998).  The statute abrogating the collateral source bar, which precluded a medical malpractice patient’s recovery of medical expenses paid by his insurer, did not violate the substantive due process or equal protection clauses of the State Constitution.

CALIFORNIA

Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 695 P.2d 665 (Cal.), appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 892 (1985).  Neither the $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions, nor the collateral source reform statute, violated the equal protection or due process provisions of the State or Federal Constitution.

FLORIDA

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1986).  The statute preventing double recovery by plaintiffs of collateral source payments in personal injury lawsuits arising from automobile accidents did not violate the equal protection provision of the State Constitution.

IOWA

Lambert v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 369 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1985).  The failure of the statute abrogating the collateral source rule in specified situations involving medical and hospital malpractice claims to distinguish between insured and self-insured institutions did not violate the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution.

MICHIGAN

Heinz v. Chicago Road Investment Co., 549 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. App. 1996), appeal denied, 567 N.W.2d 250 (Mich. 1997).  The statute providing for the admissibility of collateral source payments in personal injury actions did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property and did not violate the equal protection or right to a jury trial provision of the State Constitution.

MINNESOTA

Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal, 453 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 1990).  The statutory limit on municipal joint liability did not violate the equal protection clauses of the State or Federal Constitution.  The statutory provision allowing a court to offset collateral source payments from damages awards in personal injury actions did not violate the equal protection clauses of the State or Federal Constitution.

MINNESOTA

Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., 414 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. App. 1987).  The statutory provision allowing a court to offset collateral source payments was not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate the due process, equal protection, or right to a remedy provision of the State Constitution.

OHIO

Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School District Board of Education, 652 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio), reconsideration denied, 655 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio 1995).  The statute authorizing a trial court to offset collateral source benefits from judgments received by claimants in actions against political subdivisions to the extent the benefits can be matched to a corresponding component of the jury’s verdict did not violate the equal protection, due process, or jury trial provisions of the State Constitution; Menafee v. Queen City Metro, 550 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 1990) (same statute held to be a Constitutional exercise of legislative authority under the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions).

Reforms Struck Down as Unconstitutional (after 1983)

GEORGIA

Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, Inc., 402 S.E.2d 269 (Ga. 1991).  The statute authorizing admission of collateral sources of recovery available to plaintiffs seeking special damages for tortious injury violated the State Constitutional requirement of impartial and complete protection to person and property.

KANSAS

Farley v. Engelken, 740 P.2d 1058 (Kan. 1987).  The abrogation of the collateral source rule in health care liability actions violated the equal protection clause of the State Constitution; Wentling v. Medical Anesthesia Services, P.A., 701 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1985) (repealed predecessor statute held to violate equal protection provision of State Constitution).

Thompson v. KFB Insurance Co., 850 P.2d 773 (Kan. 1993).  The statute allowing evidence of collateral source benefits where the claimant demands judgment for damages in excess of $150,000 violated the equal protection provision of the State Constitution.

KENTUCKY

O’Bryan v. Hedgespeth, 892 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1995).  The statute allowing admission of evidence of collateral source payments in personal injury actions violated the separation of powers provision of the State Constitution.

OHIO

Sorrell v. Thevenir, 633 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio 1994).  The statute providing for the offset of collateral source benefits received by a plaintiff violated the right to a jury trial, due process, equal protection, right to open courts, and right to meaningful recovery provisions of the State Constitution; Samuels v. Coil Bar Corp., 579 N.E.2d 558 (Ohio Cm. Pl. 1991) (same as applied to wrongful death actions).

Reforms Unchallenged on Constitutional Grounds

ALASKA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 337 (1986): Alaska Stat. § 9.17.070.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments.  Provides for awards to be offset, less any amount paid by the claimant to secure the benefit, e.g., insurance premiums.

ARIZONA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 1055 (1993): Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-565.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments in all civil liability cases. 

COLORADO

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 67 (1986): Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.6.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments.  Provides for awards to be offset with broad exclusions.

CONNECTICUT

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 6134 (1986): Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52‑225a.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments.  Provides for awards to be offset by the amount paid by collateral sources less any amount paid by the claimant to secure the benefit.

DELAWARE

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Reform: Del. Code Ann. tit. 18 § 6862.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments in medical liability actions.

HAWAII

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB S1 (special session) (1986): Sunset provision (SB 1529) enacted in 1991.  Provides for the payment of valid liens (arising out of claims for payments made from collateral sources for costs and expenses arising from an injury) from special damages recovered.  Prevents double recoveries by allowing subrogation liens by insurance companies or other sources.  Allows third parties to file a lien and collect the benefits paid to the plaintiff from the plaintiff’s award. The reform does not affect the amount of damages paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

IDAHO

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 745 (1990): Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1606.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments.  Provides for awards to be offset to the extent that they include double recoveries from sources other than federal benefits, life insurance, or contractual subrogation rights.

ILLINOIS

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 1200 (1986): 735 Ill. Comp. Stat Ann. § 5/2 –1205.  Provides for awards to be offset for benefits over $25,000, as long as the offset does not reduce the judgment by more than 50%.

INDIANA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 394 (1986): Ind. Code Ann. § 34-44-1-2.   Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments from sources other than life insurance, other insurance for which the plaintiff or members of the plaintiff’s family have paid directly, or payments made by the United States or any of its agencies or subdivisions.  Provides for awards to be offset at the court’s discretion.  Permits a court to instruct a jury to disregard tax consequences of its verdict.

IOWA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SF 482 (1987).  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments.  

MAINE

Collateral Source Rule Reform: LD 2513 (1990): Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 2961.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments, where the collateral sources have not exercised subrogation rights within 10 days after a verdict for the plaintiff.

MASSACHUSETTS

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Reform: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 231 § 60-G.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral sources, less any premiums paid by the claimant to secure those benefits.

MICHIGAN

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6303.  Provides for medical liability awards to be offset by collateral sources, less any premiums paid to obtain the benefit. 

MISSOURI

Collateral Source Rule Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 490.715. R.S.Mo.  Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the actual amount of paid medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather than the amount billed.

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 700 (1987).  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, but provided that a defendant who presents collateral source payments as evidence waives his right to a credit against the judgment for that amount.

MONTANA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 567 (1987).  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, unless the source of reimbursement has a subrogation right under state or federal law.   Requires a court to offset damages over $50,000.

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Mont. Code Ann.  § 27‑1‑308.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral sources that do not involve rights of subrogation in medical liability cases for awards over $50,000.

NEBRASKA

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Neb Stat. § 44-2819.  Allows evidence of nonreturnable medical reimbursement insurance in medical liability cases to be taken as a credit against any judgment rendered.

NEVADA

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42.020.  Provides for awards in medical liability cases to be offset by the amount received by a collateral source, including any prior payment by the defendant health care provider.  

NEW JERSEY

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 2703, SB 2708 (1987): N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-92.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments other than workers’ compensation and life insurance benefits.

NEW YORK

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 9351 (1986).  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments. 

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: N.Y. C.P.L:R § 4545(a).  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments in medical liability cases.

NORTH DAKOTA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 1571 (1987): N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-06.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments other than life insurance or insurance purchased by the recovering party.

OHIO

Collateral Source Rule Reform: Am Sub SB 80 (2004); ORC Ann. 2305.131. Provides that collateral source benefits can be introduced into evidence, except under certain circumstances.

OKLAHOMA

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 629 (2003): 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1D.  Permits Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, unless the court determines the payment is subject to subrogation or any other right of recovery.

OREGON

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 323 (1987): Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.580 .  Permits a judge to reduce awards for collateral source payments, excluding life insurance and other death benefits, benefits for which plaintiff have paid premiums, retirement benefits, disability benefits, pension plan benefits, and federal social security benefits.

PENNSYLVANIA

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 1802 (2002): 40 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1301.602.  Prohibits a patient from suing for damages that were paid by a health insurer.

RHODE ISLAND

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: R.I. Gen. Laws  § 9-19-34.1.  Permits the admissibility of evidence collateral source payments from “state income disability or workers’ compensation, any health, sickness or income disability policy, or other contracts” for reimbursement.  Requires a jury to reduce damages awards by the amount paid by collateral sources, if such evidence is introduced.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: S.D. Codified Laws § 21-3-12.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments when the claimant alleges special damages that are or will be paid by insurance, are not subject to subrogation, and are not purchased privately or by government programs. 

TENNESSEE

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Reform: Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-119.  Provides for economic damages to be offset in medical liability cases by collateral sources, except for sources including the assets of the plaintiff and the immediate family, or insurance purchased by the plaintiff in whole or in part. 

UTAH

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-4.5.  Provides for awards to be offset by collateral source payments, excluding any source for which a subrogation right exists and any amount paid by plaintiff or the immediate family to secure the benefit.

WASHINGTON

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.70.080.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments in medical liability cases, except if the source is an insurance policy that the plaintiff or a member of the immediate family purchased with his or her assets.

WISCONSIN

Medical Liability Reform: Collateral Source Rule Reform: Wisc. Stat. Ann. § 893.55 (7).  Allows for the admissibility of “evidence of any compensation for bodily injury received from sources other than the defendant to compensate the claimant.”