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

plaintiffdamagesnegligencestatutetrialverdict
plaintiffdefendantdamagestrialverdict

Related Cases

Rodriguez v. Clark, 162 Conn.App. 785, 133 A.3d 510
View Case »
Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill.2d 98, 676 N.E.2d 621, 221 Ill.Dec. 818
View Case »
Prince v. Brackett, Shaw & Lunt Co., 125 Me. 31, 130 A. 509
View Case »
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development and Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 53 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 77
View Case »
Green v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 633 Pa. 18, 123 A.3d 310
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. Jubitz Corp., 347 Or. 212, 219 P.3d 566

Facts

The plaintiff, a patron at a bar, was injured when the stool he was sitting on collapsed. He sued the bar owner for negligence, seeking damages for his injuries. The jury awarded him $37,600 in economic damages, which reflected the total billed by his medical providers. The plaintiff was a Medicare beneficiary, and Medicare had paid $13,400 to his providers, who then wrote off the remaining charges. The bar owner argued that the damages should be limited to what Medicare paid, but the trial court ruled otherwise.

Plaintiff walked into a bar. He was injured when the stool he sat on collapsed beneath him and he sued defendant, the bar owner and operator, for the injuries that he incurred.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff could recover the total amount billed by his medical providers or if his recovery should be limited to the amount that Medicare paid.

Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in (1) refusing to deduct those amounts from plaintiff's jury verdict; (2) allowing plaintiff to seek a jury award of those amounts; and (3) denying defendant's request to adduce evidence of those amounts.

Rule

Under ORS 31.580, a court may deduct from a plaintiff's damages any collateral benefits received, but federal Social Security benefits, including Medicare, are exempt from such deductions.

ORS 31.580(1) provides: 'In a civil action, when a party is awarded damages for bodily injury or death of a person which are to be paid by another party to the action, and the party awarded damages or person injured or deceased received benefits for the injury or death other than from the party who is to pay the damages, the court may deduct from the amount of damages awarded, before the entry of a judgment, the total amount of those collateral benefits other than: (d) federal Social Security benefits.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of ORS 31.580 and determined that the Medicare benefits received by the plaintiff were exempt from deduction. The court emphasized that the write-offs by the medical providers were part of the federal Social Security benefits that the statute protects. Therefore, the jury's award of the full billed amount was justified, as the plaintiff had incurred those charges regardless of the Medicare payments.

However, as we have explained, if Medicare benefits fall into one of the categories set forth in ORS 31.580(1)(b), (c), or (d), then the trial court was precluded from reducing plaintiff's verdict by the amount of those benefits without regard to whether plaintiff had an obligation to repay them.

Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the bar owner was not entitled to reduce the jury's verdict based on Medicare write-offs.

The Supreme Court, Walters, J., held that: 1 establishment was not entitled to reduction in verdict for portion of patron's Medicare benefits that were required by Medicare law to be written-off by patron's medical providers, and 2 evidence of what Medicare paid to patron's medical providers was inadmissible.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court upheld the jury's award of damages, affirming that he was entitled to recover the full amount billed by his medical providers.

You must be