Summary
In Thomassie, the Patients' Compensation Fund (PCF) also argued that because it was not the actual tortfeasor, the goal of tort deterrence was not furthered by the application of the collateral source rule.
Summary of this case from Williams v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't.Opinion
No.2020-C-01229
01-20-2021
Michael L. THOMASSIE and Linda A. Thomassie v. AMEDISYS LA AQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a Metro Preferred Home Care, an Amedisys Company
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
PER CURIAM*
WRIT GRANTED. The amount paid by Tricare for Michael Thomassie's medical expenses is a collateral source subject to the collateral source rule. The collateral source rule precludes evidence of payments received from an independent source from admission at trial against the tortfeasor to mitigate, reduce, or avoid liability. Bozeman v. State , 2003-1016 (La. 7/2/04) 879 So. 2d 692, 698 ; La. Code Evid. art 409. This prevents the tortfeasor from benefiting from the victim's foresight in purchasing insurance or other benefits. Id. To determine whether Tricare is a collateral source requires an analysis of the facts in light of two considerations. First, whether classifying Tricare as a collateral source will further the primary goal of tort deterrence. Second, whether the victim, by having a collateral source available as a source of recovery, either paid for the benefit or suffered some diminution in his patrimony because the benefit was available so that he is not reaping a windfall or double recovery. Bozeman , 879 So. 2d at 700 ; Bellard v. American Central Insurance Co. , 2007-1335 (La. 4/18/08), 980 So. 2d 654, 669 ; Cutsinger v. Redfern , 2008-2607 (La. 5/22/09), 12 So. 3d 945, 953.
"The major policy reason for applying the collateral source rule to damages has been, and continues to be, tort deterrence. The underlying concept is that tort damages can help to deter unreasonably dangerous conduct. Tort deterrence has been an inherent, inseparable aspect of the collateral source rule since its inception over one hundred years ago." Bozeman , 879 So. 2d at 700. The collateral source rule applied to these facts has a deterrent effect. The Patient Compensation Fund intervened in place of the tortfeasor Amedisys. The Patient Compensation Fund's resources derive from annual charges on healthcare providers, such as Amedisys. These annual charges are calculated by an actuarial study that considers the healthcare provider's past and prospective loss and expense experience. La. R.S. 40:1231.4(A)(2). The negative financial effects of adverse claims motivates healthcare providers like Amedisys to avoid unreasonably dangerous conduct. Applying the collateral source rule here furthers the policy goal of tort deterrence.
The second consideration is whether the victim paid for the benefit or suffered some diminution in his patrimony so no actual windfall or double recovery results. It is undisputed Mr. Thomassie made annual payments to Tricare to obtain coverage. Additionally, Mr. Thomassie provided military service to this country. We find Mr. Thomassie diminished his patrimony to obtain Tricare benefits.
The lower courts erred in finding the Tricare payments are not a collateral source. Both factors, tort deterrence and diminution of patrimony, support application of the collateral source rule. For these reasons, we reverse the lower court's judgment and grant partial summary judgment to plaintiff declaring the collateral source rule applies to the value of medical services provided. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.