Opinion
No. CV04-40182768S
July 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE COLLATERAL SOURCE REDUCTION
This case was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. The verdict included an award for economic damages in the amount of $23,679.17. The defendant seeks a collateral source reduction of $1,219.50 for Medicare adjustments and write-offs.
Discussion
The issue of whether medicare write-offs are collateral sources pursuant to § 52-225 of the Connecticut General Statutes has been addressed and resolved. In Hassett v. New Haven, 49 Conn.Sup. 7 (2004) (Blue, J.), aff'd., 91 Conn.App. 245 (2005), the court stated: "For purposes of [General Statutes §§ ]52-225a to 52-225c, inclusive: `Collateral sources' means any payments made to the claimant, or on his behalf, by or pursuant to: (1) Any health or sickness insurance, automobile accident insurance that provides health benefits, and any other similar insurance benefits, except life insurance benefits available to the claimant, whether purchased by him or provided by others; or (2) any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership or corporation to provide, pay for or reimburse the costs of hospital, medical, dental or other health care services. Collateral sources do not include amounts received by a claimant as a settlement." Judge Blue reasoned that, although the voluntary forgiveness of a medical bill could be considered a payment, if it was not made by or pursuant to either (1) [a]ny . . . insurance or (2) any contract or agreement within the meaning of § 52-225b, it was not a collateral source under the statute.
In Hecht v. Staskiewicz, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV 99 0423243S (February 26, 2002, Arnold, J.), the court, citing Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 325, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981), stated that "[a] corollary of the . . . rule of [statutory] construction is that the intent of the legislature is to be found not in what the legislature meant to say, but in the meaning of what it did say. . . . The legislature has defined in clear unambiguous language those payments that it considers a collateral source. The statute does not define a decision by a medical provider to `write-off' any balance due from the plaintiff as a collateral source payment."
In Sackman v. Sullivan, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV97 0159227S (Sep. 30, 2002, Downey, J.) [ 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 172], the court, citing Hecht, noted that "[f]undamental principles of statutory construction preclude Medicare write off s as falling within the collateral source payment statute. In the absence of an applicable statute specifically addressing Medicare write offs, the common law applies. Our common law principle is that a tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiff's tort recovery may not be diminished because of benefits received by the plaintiff from independent sources."
Moreover, the statutory omission of the write-offs and adjustment from what may be deducted from a verdict as "collateral sources" is consistent with the underlying public policy of not extending the benefit of a compromised medical bill to a tortfeasor. See Hassett v. New Haven, supra.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Medicare adjustments and write-offs totaling $1,219.50 are not to be considered collateral source deductions from the plaintiff's judgment.
"It is indeed true that the traditional law of this state, and undoubtedly most others, is that the tortfeasor is not to receive the benefit of a compromised medical bill. Indeed, where a medical bill is voluntarily compromised, a collateral source deduction is unavailable for the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount of the bill. See Hassett v. New Haven, 49 Conn.Sup. 7 (2004) (Blue, J.), aff'd., 91 Conn.App. 245 (2005); see also Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (2004)." Smallridge v. Tramantozzi, Goldblatt, Fabry Surgical Associates, complex litigation docket at Middlesex, Docket No. X04 CV 03 4001300 (October 26, 2006, Beach, J.). The collateral source deduction is limited by statute to the amount actually paid by the qualified collateral source. See General Statutes § 52-225a.
"The question of whether amounts written off by health care providers qualify as collateral source payments under the statute was decided in Hecht v. Staskiewicz, (Conn.Super. February 20, 2002. (Arnold, J.). There, the court determined that `write-offs' by medical providers are not collateral sources under the statute.
Fundamental principles of statutory construction preclude Medicare write-offs as falling within the collateral source payment statute. In the absence of an applicable statute specifically addressing Medicare write offs, the common law applies. Our common law principle is that a tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiff's tort recovery may not be diminished because of benefits received by the plaintiff from independent sources. The Medicare write offs are not to be considered collateral source deductions from the plaintiff's preliminary judgment." Sackman v. Sullivan, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV 97 0159227 (September 30, 2002, Downey, J.) ( 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 172).