Phantom Damages Reform

Problem

The collateral source rule keeps important information relevant to the determination of damages from reaching the jury. It allows plaintiffs to be compensated twice for the same injury.

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports permitting the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments at trial or requiring awards to be offset by the amount paid to plaintiffs by collateral sources, less the amount paid by the plaintiff to secure the benefit.

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument in support of the collateral source rule – that a plaintiff should not be penalized for having insurance – fails to take into account the fact the jury should full information when making as determination about damages.

Phantom Damages Reform – S.F. 2338 (2020)

Iowa|2020

Limits the evidence offered to prove past medical expenses to

[…]

Limits the evidence offered to prove past medical expenses to the amounts actually paid to satisfy the bills that have been satisfied and the amounts actually necessary to satisfy the bills that have been incurred but not yet satisfied.  Provides that, except in certain medical malpractice actions, in an action brought to recover damages for personal injury, the damages that may be recovered by a claimant for the cost of medical care shall not exceed the amounts actually paid to the health care providers who rendered treatment and any amounts necessary to satisfy the charges that have been incurred but not yet satisfied.


[hide]

Unchallenged