Pending Decision May Influence Measure of Medical Damages

The first amount is not controversial because a plaintiff is, of course, entitled to be compensated for any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The second amount, too, is usually not in dispute; it is generally agreed that a defendant is also liable for medical expenses the plaintiff did not pay, but which were instead paid by her health insurance carrier. That additional recovery is the result of the common-law collateral source rule, although many states have modified the rule by statute to reduce such recoveries. As stated by the California Supreme Court, the collateral source rule provides that “if an injured party receives some compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor, such payment should not be deducted from the damages which the plaintiff would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor.” Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 6.

But, what about the third amount? Does the collateral source rule make the defendant liable not only for medical expenses that the plaintiff's insurance carrier has paid on her behalf, but also for additional amounts that neither the plaintiff nor the insurance carrier (nor anyone else) has paid or ever will pay?