(Ind., filed February 19, 2016): Arguing that admissibility of “phantom damages” as evidence impedes the search for the truth and unnecessarily makes the trial process much less efficient. Also argues that even if the Court agrees the evidence of payment from a government insurer should be excluded, it should allow for an offset of the phantom damages against the plaintiff’s compensatory damages aware, or otherwise allow the defendant to introduce evidence of the provider’s willingness to discount charges for other patients.
This op-ed was originally published by Agri-Pulse. Mass tort litigation has become a multi-billion-dollar industry for trial lawyers over the past several decades as they’ve targeted everything from tobacco and […]