Paid vs incurred
The Texas law seems to be that if a medical bill is $1000 but the plaintiff's insurance company bargains the bill down to $500, then the triers of fact only get to consider the amount paid by the insurance company. The insurance company has a right of subrogation, so medical bills are a wash for the plaintiff. Also, the jury gets a distorted picture of the probably future bills that might be incurred. Our governor vetoed a bill with almost unamious bi-partisan support to correct this disadvantage to the injured party. The truth is that the injured party has paid more than the amount of the bill to his/her insurance company that must pay the bill or bargain it down in a way a regular individual can not do. So how can the injured party's attorney fight this? What sort of a record can be made to argue the inequity of this situation? I suggest the following:
Prove up the total amount of premiums paid to your client over the past 5 years for medical insurance coverage. The argument is that the payments for premiums is to retire the medical debt. If the insurance company can do it by payments and its corporate power and bargaining position to get a discount, then the same result is accomplished. Your client’s premium payments are probably less than the retail medical bills paid over the same time period…so the bottom line is that the total bill was the amount suffered by your client through his premium payments to the big insurance company. Ask the hospital what their discount for your client if he didn’t have insurance. Introduce the whole damn thing. Collateral source is out the window so show the jury the reality of it all. Your client is paying more than the bill….and the advantage of the insurance company doesn’t lessen the cost to your client.
Check out http://www.bailey-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1215482.html to learn more about the elements of damages to be considered in a personal injury case.
