Injured Persons Will Be Denied Full Reimbursement for Medical Bills

In the recent case of Jaques v. Manton, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a negligent defendant should be allowed to introduce evidence that the injured person's medical bills were reduced by contractual adjustments that resulted from write-offs obtained by the injured person's health insurer.  At first blush, this would seem to be fair.  Why should a negligent driver, for example,  have to pay the face amount of a bill when the insurance carrier satisfied it for less and obtained an agreed write-off?  It seems only fair that if a $1,000 bill is satisfied by a $300 payment and a $700 write-off, that the negligent party should only be responsible for $300.

The controversy in this situation involves the question: who should get the benefit of the $700 write-off, the injured person or the negligent driver?  The injured person paid a premium for the health insurance, either directly or as a benefit from work.  In either case, the injured person earned the write-off through a payment that he was responsible for producing.  The write-off was not free. The injured person paid for it. On the other hand, the negligent driver did not pay the premiums for the injured person's health insurance, and, is, in effect, receiving a windfall.

If the negligent driver is to get the benefit of these write-offs, then the Ohio Supreme Court or Ohio's General Assumbley should require the negligent driver to also reimburse the injured person for the cost of his or health insurance for a period of time.   In an earlier bill, the legislature had determined that the negligent driver should be responsible for reimbursing the plaintiff for  three years of health insurance premiums.  This law has since been repealed for other reasons, but it makes sense to require this additional recovery to the injured person to balance the playing field.