January 4, 2019
Kent Bevan
In Brancati v. Bi-State Development Agency, plaintiff Brancati was injured in 2015 when a metro bus struck her while she was riding her bicycle, breaking both legs and causing permanent pain. Plaintiff filed suit and the trial judge in St. Louis County Circuit Court allowed plaintiff to introduce both her “charged” medical bills of about $77,500 and the “paid or owed” amount of about $40,800. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $625,000 against Bi-State Development.
In 2005, the Missouri legislature added a provision to the collateral source rule stating that there was a “rebuttable presumption” that the amount plaintiff actually paid for medical care represents the value of that treatment. A 2010 decision from the Missouri Supreme Court however held that both the amount billed, and the amount paid could be submitted to the jury who could then make a decision. A new law went into effect in August 2017, doing away with the “rebuttable presumption” and instead saying that plaintiffs can recover only the “actual cost” of medical care. The Eastern District Court of Appeals however in Brancati noted that there was nothing in the new language that actually bars the amount billed from going to the jury. In Brancati, the Eastern District, Missouri Court of Appeals held that an amendment to the so-called “collateral source” rule does not bar the plaintiffs from introducing the full amount they were billed for medical care, thereby appearing to undermine the purpose of the 2017 bill enacted by the legislature. Counsel for defendant Bi-State Development Agency stated he plans to seek transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.