Posts Tagged ‘collateral source rule’
CA Supreme Court comes down in favor of big insurance, against consumers Friday, August 19, 2011 � by jg
In Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, the California Supreme Court ruled those who cause injuries, not those who were injured, will benefit from the reduced prices for medical care and services negotiated by the insurance company of the person who was injured.
More from Scott Sumner on the Yanez decision and the collateral source rule Wednesday, June 30, 2010 � by jg
As between a plaintiff and a defendant in a lawsuit when someone sues the person or company that caused their injury, only the plaintiff has given something up to get their health coverage. Indemnity against healthcare costs is not only a collateral benefit, it is the plaintiff’s collateral benefit.
On Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering and the collateral source rule Tuesday, June 29, 2010 � by jg
(This was originally published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on June 29, 2010. Reprinted and/or posted with the permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).) Protecting Investments in Medical Insurance By Scott H.Z. Sumner The decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal in Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering Inc. 2010 DJDAR 9720 (June 24) […]
California Supreme Court to review Howell v. Hamilton Meats Friday, March 12, 2010 � by jg
Attorneys Scott Sumner and Christopher Dolan say the Court should uphold a decision that lets injured Californians recover the entire amount of their medical expense and not just the portion paid by the insurance company.
An explanation of the collateral source rule Tuesday, December 22, 2009 � by eric
If a drunken driver kills your spouse, should that driver get a break because you invested in life insurance? If you are injured and cannot work, should the person who stripped your ability to work pay less because you invested in disability insurance? If you are injured and must get medical care, should the person who sent you to the emergency room gain a financial advantage simply because you invested in health insurance?