Relating to preventing compensatory damage awards for medical expenses from including certain sums
Impact
The passage of HB 2627 would signify a significant change in how medical expenses are calculated in legal claims, effectively abrogating the common-law collateral source rule. This change would mean that only amounts actually paid (or to be paid) for medical care can be included in damage assessments, thereby reducing the potential financial liability for defendants in medical malpractice cases. This bill could streamline litigation by creating clearer evidentiary standards regarding medical claims and potentially reduce the total damages awarded in personal injury cases involving medical expenses.
Summary
House Bill 2627, introduced by Delegate Foster, seeks to amend existing laws regarding compensatory damage awards for medical expenses in West Virginia. Specifically, the bill aims to prevent these awards from including amounts that the claimant has not actually paid or will not pay for medical treatment. This legislative action is intended to ensure that damage awards correspond strictly to actual incurred costs, thereby establishing clear monetary limits on claims related to medical services. The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for further consideration, reflecting its importance and potential implications for medical expense litigation.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 2627 appears to be mixed, with supporters asserting that it will help create a more predictable legal environment and limit excessive damage claims. Proponents argue that this is a necessary reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and ensure fairness in how damages are awarded. However, critics may view the bill as a limitation on a victim's financial recovery and an attempt to undermine the rights of injured parties claiming necessary and reasonable medical expenses. This divide illustrates an ongoing tension between protecting defendants from high liabilities while ensuring adequate compensation for claimants.
Contention
Key points of contention in the discussions regarding HB 2627 revolve around the potential effects on injured parties and the perceived fairness of limiting damage awards to only actual amounts billed and accepted by healthcare providers. Opponents fear that this could disadvantage plaintiffs who require comprehensive care beyond what their insurance or health plans cover, especially in cases involving considerable future medical costs. The debate thus reflects broader issues of legal and medical economics, with significant implications for personal injury law in West Virginia.
Establishes cap on recovery of compensatory damages and limits contingency fee in medical malpractice cases; permits periodic payment of damages in certain instances; restricts benevolent gesture liability.