Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffappeal
contracttortplaintiffliabilityappealcorporation

Related Cases

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249, 67 ERC 1225, 77 USLW 4001, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,990, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,797, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 547
View Case »
Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511
View Case »
F.T.C. v. Network Services Depot, Inc., 617 F.3d 1127, 2010 Trade Cases P 77,131, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,561, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,800
View Case »
United States Casualty Company v. Hume, 229 A.D. 784, 242 N.Y.S. 914 (Mem)
View Case »
Ramara, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 660
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Leitinger v. DBart, Inc., 302 Wis.2d 110, 2007 WI 84, 736 N.W.2d 1

Facts

Joseph Leitinger was injured while working at a construction site, resulting in significant medical expenses. His health care provider billed $154,818.51 for treatment, but accepted $111,394.73 from his health insurer due to negotiated discounts. The Circuit Court allowed evidence of the amount paid by the insurer to be presented to the jury, which awarded Leitinger the amount his insurer paid. Leitinger appealed, arguing that this evidence was inadmissible under the collateral source rule.

In August 2001, Joseph Leitinger was employed as a contractor by Van Buren Management. While at work on a construction site operated by DBart, Joseph Leitinger crashed through the floor, falling 30 feet, sustaining serious injuries. Leitinger incurred extensive medical expenses, which were paid primarily by his health insurance company, Compcare Health Services Insurance Corporation.

Issue

Whether evidence of the amount actually paid by a plaintiff's health insurance company for medical treatment is admissible in a personal injury action for the purpose of establishing the reasonable value of the medical treatment rendered.

The issue of law presented on review is whether, in light of the collateral source rule, evidence of the amount actually paid by a plaintiff's health insurance company for the plaintiff's medical treatment is admissible in a personal injury action for the purpose of establishing the reasonable value of the medical treatment rendered.

Rule

The collateral source rule prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding benefits a plaintiff received from sources that are not related to the tortfeasor, thereby preventing the tortfeasor from benefiting from payments made by collateral sources.

Simply put, the collateral source rule states that benefits an injured person receives from sources that have nothing to do with the tortfeasor may not be used to reduce the tortfeasor's liability to the injured person.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of the collateral source rule, emphasizing that the rule is designed to ensure that a plaintiff can recover the reasonable value of medical services without being limited by the amounts paid by a collateral source. The court referenced previous cases that established the principle that the reasonable value of medical treatment is not dictated by the amounts paid by insurers, and thus, the evidence of the amount actually paid was deemed inadmissible.

The collateral source rule is specifically designed to prevent a discount received by a plaintiff's insurance company from affecting the plaintiff's recovery of the reasonable value of medical services rendered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that evidence of the amount actually paid by the health insurer was inadmissible under the collateral source rule, thereby upholding the principle that a plaintiff's recovery should reflect the reasonable value of medical services.

We hold, as did the court of appeals, that the collateral source rule prohibits parties in a personal injury action from introducing evidence of the amount actually paid by the injured person's health insurance company, a collateral source, for medical treatment rendered to prove the reasonable value of the medical treatment.

Who won?

Joseph Leitinger prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that protected his right to recover the reasonable value of his medical expenses without regard to the amounts paid by his health insurer.

Leitinger argues that the amount actually paid by his health insurance company for his medical treatment is evidence of a collateral source payment and is thus inadmissible evidence under the collateral source rule.

You must be