Collateral source rule: Difference between revisions
add "rule" as the main title |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Collateral source rule''', or '''collateral source doctrine''', is a rule of evidence that prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a victim's damages were compensated from some other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury action, evidence that the Plaintiff's medical bills were paid by medical insurance would not be admissible. |
The '''Collateral source rule''', or '''collateral source doctrine''', is a rule of evidence that prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a victim's damages were compensated from some other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury action, evidence that the Plaintiff's medical bills were paid by medical insurance would not be admissible. |
||
The collateral source doctrine has come under attack by "[[tort reform]]" advocates. They argue that if the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have already been compensated it is unfair and duplicative to allow an award of damages against the [[tortfeasor]]. Opponents of tort reform, respond that the collateral source doctrine encourages people to buy insurance in order to protect themselves from risk. In addition many insurance or other payment sources that do pay for damages gain a [[lien]] or [[subrogation]] interest in the ultimate recovery. This means that the injured person must pay back his health [[insurer]] before he collects anything. If evidence of the collateral source is admitted and the [[factfinder]] reduces the award to compensate for the already paid damages, this can result in a terrible undercompensation for the injury, as the lien-holder will generally attempt to recover the full value of his lien thus leaving the Plaintiff uncompensated for lost earnings, pain, anguish or other [[non-economic damages]]. |
The [http://www.millerandzois.com/Collateral_Source_Rule.html collateral source doctrine] has come under attack by "[[tort reform]]" advocates. They argue that if the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have already been compensated it is unfair and duplicative to allow an award of damages against the [[tortfeasor]]. Opponents of tort reform, respond that the collateral source doctrine encourages people to buy insurance in order to protect themselves from risk. In addition many insurance or other payment sources that do pay for damages gain a [[lien]] or [[subrogation]] interest in the ultimate recovery. This means that the injured person must pay back his health [[insurer]] before he collects anything. If evidence of the collateral source is admitted and the [[factfinder]] reduces the award to compensate for the already paid damages, this can result in a terrible undercompensation for the injury, as the lien-holder will generally attempt to recover the full value of his lien thus leaving the Plaintiff uncompensated for lost earnings, pain, anguish or other [[non-economic damages]]. |
||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
Revision as of 20:21, 7 July 2006
The Collateral source rule, or collateral source doctrine, is a rule of evidence that prohibits the admission at trial of evidence that a victim's damages were compensated from some other source of compensation. For example, in a personal injury action, evidence that the Plaintiff's medical bills were paid by medical insurance would not be admissible.
The collateral source doctrine has come under attack by "tort reform" advocates. They argue that if the Plaintiff's injuries and damages have already been compensated it is unfair and duplicative to allow an award of damages against the tortfeasor. Opponents of tort reform, respond that the collateral source doctrine encourages people to buy insurance in order to protect themselves from risk. In addition many insurance or other payment sources that do pay for damages gain a lien or subrogation interest in the ultimate recovery. This means that the injured person must pay back his health insurer before he collects anything. If evidence of the collateral source is admitted and the factfinder reduces the award to compensate for the already paid damages, this can result in a terrible undercompensation for the injury, as the lien-holder will generally attempt to recover the full value of his lien thus leaving the Plaintiff uncompensated for lost earnings, pain, anguish or other non-economic damages.
External links
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |