• Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now

Evidence of Collateral Source Payments May Be Admissible to Show Bias (11th Circuit)

Evidence of Collateral Source Payments May Be Admissible to Show Bias (11th Circuit)

Evidence of Collateral Source Payments May Be Admissible to Show Bias (11th Circuit)

April 19, 2018 Posted by Jeremy W. Richter Discovery & Evidence

ML Healthcare Services, LLC v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. [No. 15-13851 Feb. 7, 2018] ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 2018): Evidence of collateral source payments may be admissible to show a doctor’s bias as to his causation testimony about the treatment he provided. (download the opinion)

Robin Houston sued Publix arising from an alleged slip-and-fall at a Publix Super Market in McDonough, Georgia. The alleged incident occurred on July 24, 2012, after which Houston treated with a medical doctor who sold the medical debt for Houston’s treatment to a litigation investment company, ML Healthcare. ML Healthcare purchases medical debt at a discount rate from medical providers, using a contract that allows ML Healthcare to recover out of an tort settlement or judgment the full cost of the medical care provided. At trial, Publix sought to introduce evidence of this collateral source relationship to show Houston’s doctor’s were biased in their testimony and that Houston’s claimed medical expenses were unreasonable.

Georgia’s Collateral Source Rule

Stated in its simplest terms, Georgia’s collateral source rule allows that “the receipt of benefits or mitigation of loss from sources other than the defendant will not operate to diminish plaintiff’s recovery of damages.”((Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54, 55 (1988) (A plaintiff as “the right to recover damages undiminished by collateral benefits).)) Evidence of collateral sources payments is inadmissible if it would be used only to show a reduction in damages.((Id. at 56.)) However, evidence of collateral source payments is admissible if it serves a valid evidentiary purpose other than revealing the benefits to the jury.

In the ML Healthcare Services case, Publix sought to introduce evidence of collateral source payments to attack the credibility of the causation opinions offered by Houston’s doctors. The district court found that ML Healthcare’s business model, which included fronting medical expenses for plaintiffs to treating physicians was highly relevant and probative as to the bias of the treating doctors, as was the reasonableness of the medical expenses. As such, the district court found the collateral source evidence had the valid evidentiary purpose of impeaching the witnesses and was admissible.

Distinguishing Alabama’s Collateral Source Rule

According to this 11th Circuit opinion, in Alabama, any showing that the Plaintiff has received collateral source payments (whether insurance payments, workmen’s compensation benefits, or from a litigation investment firm) may constitute reversible error.((Southern v. Plumb Tools, 696 F.2d 1321 (11th Cir. 1983).)) Note: My practical experience has differed, so I may need to do some additional looking into this issue. But suffice it to say that if you’re in an 11th Circuit state other than Georgia, your state law will be applied and may achieve a different result than this opinion allows.

Admissible Use of Evidence of Collateral Source Payments

The 11th Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that evidence of collateral source payments was admissible for the purpose of showing potential bias of Houston’s treating physicians’ testimony. For ML Healthcare to be profitable it must subsidize plaintiffs who win their lawsuits. The arrangement creates a risk of bias on the part of medical providers who receive referrals from ML Healthcare and later testify on behalf of the patients/plaintiffs they have treated. If the doctor failed to provide causation testimony favorable to the plaintiff’s claim, ML Healthcare would find doctors who were willing to provide such testimony.

Because the collateral source evidence served a legitimate evidentiary purpose (other than to reduce damages, for which purpose the evidence would have been inadmissible), the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.


Photo by Alex Proimos.

Do your best work. Be your best self.

Get the first three chapters of Level Up Your Law Practice so you can have a successful and sustainable law practice that meets your needs through self-assessment, having a vision for yourself and your practice, and client relationships that are built on trust.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

A Pension Board May Be an Independent Entity from the Municipality It Serves

Jul 24, 2016

City of Birmingham v. Alex Thomas - The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has held that a pension board is a separate entity from the municipality under certain conditions.

Leave the Job You Hate, and Land the Job You Want

Leave the Job You Hate, and Land the Job You Want

Jul 17, 2018

If you are a lawyer who’s been grinding away for[...]

Underinsured Motorist Insurer’s Subrogation Interest in a Lambert Advance

Jul 11, 2016

A UIM insurer does not have a subrogation interest in Lambert advance; the recovery by the insurer from the tortfeasor of a Lambert advance does not create a common fund; and the UIM insurer should not be required to pay attorney's fees for the recovery of the Lambert advance under the common-fund doctrine.

The podcast you didn’t know you needed

Recent Posts

  • The Year That Was and the Year That Is
  • Intellectual Property Issues for Entrepreneurs with Becki C. Lee
  • Setting Expectations and Delivering on Them with Patricia Baxter
  • Get Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable with Mark Bassingthwaighte
  • Appearance on Litera’s “Inside the Firm”

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message
Doing your best work. Be your best self. Let me help you get there with my new book "Level Up Your Law Practice"

© 2021 · Richter Holdings, LLC

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Prev Next