Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

November 02, 2015 | Blog Post| WHAT THE SECOND DISTRICT GIVETH, THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY

Florida Supreme Court rules that evidence of future Medicare or Medicaid benefits is not admissible as an exception to the Collateral Source Rule 

Overview

On October 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed a Second District decision that ruled evidence of Medicare benefits was admissible under an exception to the collateral source rule, created in a prior decision. Joerg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 5995754.

Background

Under Florida law, the collateral source rule requires trial courts to reduce the jury award “by the total of all amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from all collateral sources. . .” §768.76(1) Fla. Stat. (2014). The court is tasked with reducing the award since, as an evidentiary rule, evidence of collateral source benefits is not admissible at trial.

As an exception to the collateral source rule, there are no reductions “for collateral sources for which a subrogation or reimbursement right exists.” §768.76(1) Fla. Stat. Moreover, the statute also provides that proceeds from social legislation benefits, such Medicare, Worker’s Compensation, Medicaid, and Social Security, shall not be considered a collateral source. §768.76(2)(b) Fla. Stat.

In 1984, the Supreme Court of Florida created another exception to the collateral source rule when it held, “[E]vidence of free or low cost services from governmental or charitable agencies available to anyone with specific disabilities is admissible on the issue of future damages. . . ” Florida Physician’s Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1984).

The plaintiffs in Stanley alleged that their son sustained intellectual disability and cerebral palsy as a result of the defendants’ medical negligence. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that their son would require special therapy for the remainder of his life. The defendants were permitted to introduce evidence of “free or low-cost” charitable and governmental programs to meet the plaintiff’s future needs. The First District reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that it violated the collateral source rule. However, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed the First District’s decision thereby creating the “Stanley Exception.”

Although Stanley created a new exception to the collateral source rule, it did not directly specify whether it applied to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Over the next thirty years, the courts struggled with how and when to apply the Stanley exception. Remarkably, it was not until the Second District’s decision in the underlying appeal in 2013 that a court definitively ruled that evidence of future benefits under Medicare (and presumably other social legislation such as Medicaid, Workers Compensation, Social Security, etc.) was admissible under the Stanley exception. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Joerg, 2013 WL 3107207.

The plaintiffs in Joerg alleged that their son sustained intellectual disabilities as a result of being struck by a car while riding his bike. He was a disabled adult living with his parents and was never employed in his life. As a result of his disabilities, he was entitled to future Medicare benefits. The trial court precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of future Medicare or Medicaid benefits as it would violate the collateral source rule. However, the Second District reversed the trial court’s ruling based on the Stanley exception. In short, the Second District deemed the future Medicare benefits were “free or low-cost” to the plaintiffs’ son since he had never worked or contributed to the Medicare program, and therefore the benefits to him were “unearned.” Joerg, 38 Fla. L. Weekly at D1379.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida has now quashed the Second District’s decision and clarified that Stanley was never intended to permit evidence of future benefits from social legislation such as Medicare or Medicaid to be admissible. The court noted that the admissibility of evidence of social legislation benefits has long been considered highly prejudicial. The court held that the benefits at issue in Stanley were “free or low-cost” because they were community based special needs education and therapy that would not leave the plaintiff liable for reimbursement, as occurs with Medicare and Medicaid. Joerg, 2015 WL 5995754 at 8.

Analysis

Clearly, the ruling in Joerg is a blow to parties defending against factually similar claims. However, this ruling should not be lamented as a landmark reversal of longstanding Florida law. More accurately, it simply quashes a two year old decision that was narrowly applicable to plaintiffs entitled to future Medicare benefits despite never having contributed to the Medicare program. The Second District’s ruling never stood to apply to cases involving plaintiffs who had earned the benefits by contributing to the Medicare program through employment.

Moreover, although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Joerg is favorable to plaintiffs, the decision itself does not overturn the exception to the collateral source rule created in Stanley, which is still valid law in Florida. While benefits such and Medicare and Medicaid no longer fall within the exception, there is still room for defense practitioners to argue that collateral sources from other charitable or governmental programs do fall within the exception. 

Charles Reynolds 

Chas’ practice focuses on products liability, construction defect litigation, medical malpractice litigation and the defense of toxic torts. He has also litigated a number of complex and catastrophic injury cases throughout the southeastern United States and the Caribbean. He is also one of the few trial attorneys in Florida to be certified under the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) ratings certification which is the country’s primary green building practices standard.

Troy Vuurens 

Troy Vuurens is a member of the firm’s construction and liability departments. He also has experience in foster abuse liability, property subrogation, premises liability, and dram shop/liquor liability. He has tried numerous civil litigation cases to verdict and successfully defended clients in appellate proceedings.

July 19, 2019 Blog PostPHENOMENON OR PANDEMIC: PONDERING THE POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE E-SCOOTER CRAZE

On July 12, 2019, YouTube celebrity Emily Hartridge died from injuries she sustained in a collision between an electric scooter (“e-scooter”) she was riding and a truck in London, England. This high profile incident helps bring to light the legal phenomenon being created by the e-scooter rental industry...

Read More »
May 29, 2019 Blog PostThe Final Word? The Florida Supreme Court Adopts the Daubert Standard for Evidence

Prior to 1993, federal and state courts used the standard enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), to determine whether scientific evidence should be admitted at a trial.  The Frye standard requires the offeror of the evidence to establish that the expert opinion is based on principles and testing procedures that are generally accepted by the scientific community.  The standard only applies to new and novel scientific evidence.

Read More »
February 27, 2017 Blog PostNEW MEDICARE CONDITIONAL PAYMENT CASE: FEDERAL COURT REQUIRES CMS TO PERFORM SURGERY ON ITS PRIMARY PLAN REIMBUSEMENT DEMANDS

Doctors often treat Medicare beneficiaries for accident related injuries (for which a “primary” auto or workers’ compensation carrier must reimburse Medicare) and unrelated maladies at the same visit. Billing for the visit cites multiple diagnosis codes, but a single charge for treatment of both an accident related back injury and unrelated hypertension, or gout for example.

Read More »
December 06, 2016 Blog PostTRIAL COURT SLIPS AND FALLS IN GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

On October 21, 2016, Florida’s Second DCA issued a decision in a slip-and-fall case against Wal-Mart that found the trial court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and granted Plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the basis that Wal-Mart’s failure to follow its own safety policy clearly demonstrated a finding of negligence.

Read More »
October 22, 2015 Blog PostFlorida's 4th DCA Enforces Limit on Expert Discovery

Inconsistencies between the defense expert’s interrogatory answers and his deposition testimony regarding the percentage of income the doctor derived from working as an expert witness, and the number of times he testified for plaintiffs versus defendants.

Read More »
June 04, 2015 Blog PostSouthern District of Florida Awards Duplicate Medicare Lien Payment

The federal order was issued despite the fact that Plaintiff previously obtained a reduction of Humana’s lien amount in the state court declaratory action based on the amount of her recovery and procurement costs, which was appealed by Humana.  That appeal remains pending.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostSports Laws Focusing More and More on Youth Sports

Youth sports have become a year-round, multi-million dollar industry. From travel teams, to club ball, to off-season workouts, the concept of youth sports has changed dramatically from a fun day at the park to a highly competitive atmosphere, where specialization and focus on one particular sport begins at an earlier and earlier age. As a result of the increase in the popularity and appetite for competition among children, the law has also begun to change.

Read More »
Key Points