Tennessee Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Proof Of Medical Expenses In Personal Injury Cases

Friday, November 17, 2017
In a case closely watched by Tennessee lawyers, the Tennessee Supreme Court has declined to change the law on what evidence can be used to prove medical expenses in cases involving personal injury.  The Court held that Tennessee law continues to allow plaintiffs to use full, undiscounted medical bills to prove their medical expenses instead of the discounted amounts paid by insurance companies.
 
In a case filed in Crockett County, Jean Dedmon sued for injuries she sustained in a car accident.
Mrs. Dedmon attached the bills from her hospital and her doctors to her legal complaint.
 
While Mrs. Dedmon’s case was pending, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion in another case, West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation.  West involved a hospital’s legal claim, called a lien, for the full amount of patients’ unpaid medical expenses.  The Court in West observed that most hospitals routinely send bills to all patients, regardless of whether the patients have insurance. These bills are far larger than the discounted payments the hospitals have contractually agreed to accept from insurance companies for those patients that do have insurance. Based upon the specific provisions of the lien statute, the West Court held that the hospital’s lien was limited to the discounted amounts paid by the patients’ insurance companies. 
 
After the Supreme Court’s decision in West was announced, the defendants in Dedmon argued to the trial court that West had also changed the law in Tennessee for all cases involving personal injuries. After West, they said, personal injury plaintiffs who have insurance can no longer use the full medical bills to prove their medical expenses.  The trial court in Dedmon agreed.  Based on West, it limited the plaintiffs’ proof on medical expenses to the discounted payments the hospital and doctors had contractually agreed to accept from Mrs. Dedmon’s insurance company. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
 
The Court of Appeals reversed.  It held that West does not apply in personal injury cases outside the context of the lien statute.  Consequently, even plaintiffs who have insurance can use full, undiscounted medical bills to prove medical expenses. However, it also said that defendants can use discounted insurance payments to prove that the undiscounted bills are not reasonable.
 
The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed that its holding in West was not intended to apply to all personal injury cases.  West only applies to hospital lien cases.
 
The defendants nevertheless urged the Court to adopt a new approach.  They argued that courts should value medical services the same way as a house or a car, by the “fair market value.”  The discounted amounts paid by insurance companies are basically the “fair market value” of medical services, they said, so medical expense damages should be limited to the discounted insurance amounts.
 
The Supreme Court disagreed.  It explained that Tennessee has always followed the so-called “collateral source rule,” which means that payments and other benefits received by plaintiffs that do not come from the defendant — in other words, benefits that are “collateral” to the defendant — may not be used to reduce the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff.  The rule also prevents defendants from telling juries about plaintiffs’ insurance and other such benefits because it might cause juries to think the plaintiffs have already been paid for their injuries.  
 
The Court observed that, in recent years, health care has become extremely complex.  Pricing for medical services is distorted by many things, including deep discounts demanded by insurance companies, laws that require hospitals to treat patients who cannot pay, and benefits like TennCare that pay a set amount for all treatment of a patient.  One result has been a widening of the gap between hospitals’ standard rates for uninsured patients and the discounted amounts hospitals accept from insurance companies.
 
The Court looked in depth at different ways other states have handled this issue.  Only a few states have either limited plaintiffs’ medical expense damages to the discounted insurance amounts or allowed defendants to use the insurance payments to reduce their liability.  Both approaches are contrary to the collateral source rule. Both approaches would end up treating plaintiffs with insurance differently from plaintiffs without insurance. Neither approach takes into account benefits other than private insurance, such as TennCare, charity, or gifts.   
 
Importantly, the Court said, “it is evident that medical expenses cannot be valued in the same way one would value a house or a car,” since “health care services are highly regulated and rates are skewed by countless factors, only one of which is insurance.”  There is no reason to think the discounted insurance rates are a more accurate way for courts to determine the value of medical services.     
 
The Court acknowledged that the collateral source rule is imperfect.  It said that the defendants had “ably pointed out the shortcomings of the collateral source rule in the current health care environment.  They are substantial and we do not minimize them.”  However, the defendants had not pointed “to a better alternative.”
 
After its thorough review, the Court declined to alter existing law in Tennessee. It held that the collateral source rule applies in this case. As a result, the plaintiffs may use evidence of Mrs. Dedmon’s full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of her reasonable medical expenses. It held that the defendants may not use the discounted rates paid by Mrs. Dedmon’s insurance company for any purpose.  The defendants are free to use any other evidence to show that the full medical expenses are not reasonable, so long as that evidence does not violate the collateral source rule.        
To read the unanimous opinion in Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman et al., authored by Justice Holly Kirby, go to the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.


Tennessee Unemployment Holds Steady For 3rd Consecutive Month

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam and Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner Burns Phillips today released the statewide unemployment rate for July 2018, and for the third consecutive month the statistic has remained at a historically low 3.5 percent.   Tennessee’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has not only remained unchanged since May, ... (click for more)

53 Miller & Martin Attorneys Listed In The Best Lawyers In America 2019 Edition

The law firm of Miller & Martin announced 53 of its attorneys have been selected by  Best Lawyers  for inclusion in  The Best Lawyers in America  2019 edition. Additionally, seven of the firm’s attorneys in the Chattanooga metro area were selected as "Lawyer of the Year" for their respective disciplines. Only a single lawyer in each specialty, within a ... (click for more)

Price Has Risen To $143 Million For State's Most Expensive Road Project - Downtown Chattanooga Freeway

The cost of Chattanooga's downtown freeway makeover - estimated at $85 million in 2006 and bid at $126.3 million when it got underway in November 2015 - has climbed to $143 million as issues were encountered along the way, TDOT's Ken Flynn said Monday. The Highway 27 project to provide three lanes in each direction from the I-24 split to the river was already the most expensive ... (click for more)

Signal Mayor Chris Howley Not Running Again; Man Suing Town To Be On Ballot For Council

Signal Mountain Mayor Chris Howley has decided not to seek re-election. He had until noon today to return the petition that he picked up earlier. Rick Saputa, who is suing the city but also picked up a petition for the council, did qualify just before the deadline. Others running for the Town Council include former Mayor Bill Lusk, Councilman Dan Landrum and new-comers ... (click for more)

Jeff Styles, I Believe You - And Response (5)

I am glad that Jeff Styles presented the details of the event on his website.  Just because the government alleges a crime does not mean guilty. A criminal charge is an allegation by government. Sure, that allegation can be very serious, but the charge is still an unproven allegation until a court of law and Lady Justice has her review of the proof.  A person gets ... (click for more)

Roy Exum: Trump’s Editorial Coup

I got a great laugh when I heard a consortium of “the greatest newspapers in the world” would band together – as one mighty voice – and collectively castigate President Trump for his repeated attacks on newspapers, their editors and their reporters. “Our words will differ,” said Marjorie Pritchard of the Boston Globe, who called for the group-fest, “but we can agree that such attacks ... (click for more)