Medical Malpractice – Collateral Sources
The enactment of SB605 is expected to significantly alter the landscape of medical malpractice claims in Maryland. By allowing collateral source evidence to influence jury decisions, the bill could lead to lower damage awards in cases where plaintiffs have received compensation from other sources. Additionally, it removes existing prohibitions on modifying awards in arbitration proceedings, further streamlining how damages can be adjusted in light of collateral sources. These changes might encourage defendants to settle cases out of court, knowing the potential limits to damage awards.
Senate Bill 605 aims to amend the existing laws surrounding medical malpractice litigation, particularly regarding the admissibility of collateral source evidence in jury trials. The bill mandates that evidence of any payment or benefit received by the plaintiff from a collateral source, such as insurance or worker's compensation, must be considered when determining damages. Consequently, if the jury fails to account for these benefits in their award, the court is required to deduct the amounts from the total damages awarded to the plaintiff. This measure seeks to avoid duplicate recovery for damages already compensated by other means, thus ensuring that defendants are not penalized beyond necessary measures.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB605 revolve around concerns that the bill could disadvantage plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases. Opponents argue that such measures could disincentivize legitimate claims, as injured parties may find the prospect of recovering adequate compensation diminished. They contend that reducing awards based on collateral sources may not reflect the actual financial impact of a medical injury, particularly those that have long-term consequences. As legislators debate the bill, balancing the interests of defendants and ensuring fair compensation for injured parties remains a focal point in discussions.