If enacted, HB789 significantly changes the landscape of civil litigation in Louisiana, particularly in cases concerning medical expenses. By disallowing plaintiffs from claiming damages based on the billed amount and restricting recoveries to the amounts actually disbursed by insurance entities or Medicare, the bill seeks to reduce perceived abuses of the system. This could result in lower compensation for plaintiffs in personal injury cases, impacting their ability to cover medical costs incurred due to negligence or accidents.
Summary
House Bill 789 (HB789) aims to reform how medical expenses are recovered in civil litigation by implementing specific limitations on the amounts that plaintiffs can claim. The proposed legislation stipulates that medical expenses recoverable as damages will no longer reflect the full amount billed by healthcare providers but will instead be capped at the actual amount paid by health insurance companies or Medicare. This change introduces a new standard for determining what constitutes a recoverable expense, thereby modifying existing legal precedents related to the collateral source rule.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB789 appears to be divided among stakeholders. Proponents of the bill argue it will help reduce excessive claims and fraudulent practices in personal injury lawsuits, ultimately benefiting the overall healthcare and insurance systems. However, critics express concerns that the bill could unjustly penalize individuals by limiting their ability to recover adequate compensation for their medical expenses, especially for those who rely on healthcare services and may not fully understand the implications of such reductions.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HB789 focus on the fairness of limiting recoverable damages based solely on insurance payouts. Opponents argue that the legislation undermines the rights of patients by failing to account for the genuine financial burdens they face when medical expenses exceed what insurance covers. This debate reflects broader discussions about the right to adequate compensation in civil justice versus the need for regulatory measures to curb potential abuses in the system.