Lamar lawmaker’s bill limits medical damages to actual cost of care

March 28--JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- In 2003, Marshfield resident Delmar Teasley caused a multivehicle collision, resulting in Edith Deck's need for surgery and physical therapy.

According to court records, the hospital sent Deck a bill for about $28,000. However, "collateral sources" like Medicare and supplemental private insurance knocked her bill down to $9,900.

A Greene County Circuit Court found that a jury didn't need to know what her original bill was in her personal injury case, in line with 2005 legislative changes to the "collateral source rule." However, on appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court disagreed, ruling in 2010 that Deck proved that "value" of her care was better represented by the original bill than what she actually paid.

Ever since, courts have been using the precedent set in Deck v. Teasley. State Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, wants to change that by passing a law that makes clear that only the actual cost paid or to be paid will be calculated into damages, not the cost billed by the hospital.

"(My bill) essentially repairs a problem created by a judicial opinion in 2010 that undid a tort reform (...) that says that medical costs are medical costs, not some imaginary number that might represent 'value,'" Emery said Monday during a House hearing for the bill.

The bill, which has passed the Senate, is the same bill that passed through the Legislature last year but was vetoed by then-Gov. Jay Nixon. The bill most likely will face a warmer reception this year from Gov. Eric Greitens, who has called the judicial system in Missouri broken and in need of fixing. An avalanche of "tort" reform bills were filed this year; "tortious" acts refer to civil wrongs in which damages can be awarded.

In the hearing, proponents derided the 2010 Deck decision as "judicial activism" and called the law a "commonsense" fix.

Rachel Hill, a lobbyist with the Missouri Hospital Association, argued in favor of the bill, saying that by presenting two numbers to a jury -- the amount billed and the amount paid -- was confusing and causes it to award an "arbitrary" amount.

"When you go in and want to buy a car, they are not going to pay sticker price," Hill said. "... No one will ever pay that higher amount."

Brian McCallister, a lobbyist for the Missouri Attorney of Trial Attorneys, said insurance benefits should be irrelevant to juries who are deciding compensatory damages.

"We are taking away a benefit that working men and women have paid for in the form of premiums," McCallister said.

Emery said in an interview that the bill was another in a line of tort reform legislation that was looking to make Missouri's judicial atmosphere amenable to bringing businesses into the state. Big employers that would most likely be defendants in personal injury lawsuits -- such as Washington University in St. Louis, Monsanto, Johnson & Johnson, Kansas City Power & Light -- testified in favor of the bill.

Rep. Mark Ellebract, D-Liberty, said in the hearing that the bill penalizes those who have paid for private health insurance -- they would get less in damages than those without any insurance.

Emery countered that bigger damages result in insurance companies raising all premiums to offset costs. He added that plaintiffs would still be able to recoup damages based on lost wages, future lost wages, future medical costs and punitive measures.

He urged House members not to make changes to the bill because then it would need to go back to the Senate for a vote.

"I don't think this bill could pass twice in the Senate," Emery said.

___

(c)2017 The Joplin Globe (Joplin, Mo.)

Visit The Joplin Globe (Joplin, Mo.) at www.joplinglobe.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.