|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ISSUE: COLLATERAL SOURCE SUMMARY: The collateral source rule holds that a plaintiff is entitled to any and all benefits resulting from successful litigation, and prohibits the introduction of evidence that the plaintiff has received benefits from other sources. In support of the collateral source rule, proponents argue that a person injured by the wrongful or unlawful acts of another is entitled to the full value of that injury from those who perpetrated the wrong. They further argue that to enable a wrongdoer to avoid payment by demonstrating that the injured party has already received benefits for the injury would allow some of those responsible for the injury to avoid paying for their actions. Opponents of the collateral source rule argue that except where subrogated interests exist by law, a flat prohibition on introduction of collateral sources means that an injured party may be "overcompensated" for the injury by receiving benefits for the same injury from two different sources: the collateral source and the defendant in a tort action. Recent attempts to modify the collateral source rule peaked in 1987. The primary focus of the original bills introduced that year was to require courts or health arbitration panels to consider the total amounts paid from collateral sources in civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death. In those instances where a collateral source of benefit payment was available, the court or panel would be required to reduce the award equal to the amounts obtained from other sources. When these early attempts to eliminate the collateral source rule failed, proponents of change introduced legislation late in the session to permit modification or remittitur of damages in medical malpractice awards if modification is supported by evidence. This proposal was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The statute excludes workers’ compensation, life insurance policies and employee benefits from consideration in the calculations. The statute authorized defendants to require that an award of damages be reduced by the amount a plaintiff obtains from other sources. Some award sources such as workers' compensation, life insurance policies and employee benefits were excluded from consideration. An effort to change the collateral source rule was undertaken in 1996 as part of the Governor’s bill to bring down automobile insurance rates in Baltimore City. The proposal passed, but only after the sections dealing with collateral source were removed. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Oppose any changes in the collateral source rule. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
