AMCNO Applauds Ohio Supreme Court Decision in Jacques v. Manton

 The Ohio Supreme Court has rendered a decision in the Jacques v. Manton case, reaffirming Robinson v. Bates, as the AMCNO had hoped. The opinion, 5-1, states that evidence may be admitted of both the amount billed a plaintiff in medical charges and the amount actually paid.

The AMCNO Medical Legal Liaison Committee tracks cases for the AMCNO Board of Directors that come before the Ohio Supreme Court (OSC) that could impact or change the current tort reform law in Ohio and our physician members. As a result, with the assistance of the Reminger law firm, AMCNO filed an Amicus Brief, (literally “Friend of the Court”) arguing that the Robinson decision, public policy concerns, and logic all compel the conclusion that Robinson remains in full force.

The AMCNO brief noted that it is a universally accepted reality by plaintiff lawyers, defense lawyers, the courts, and others, that the amount of medical bills presented in a claim bears a direct correlation to jury verdicts, and also to settlements, arbitration decisions, and mediation outcomes. The AMCNO is pleased with this OSC decision and the fact that the Court recognized that Robinson and R.C. 2315.20, as amended in 2005, are easily compatible, and will make it clear to courts across the state that jurors are entitled to hear all evidence relevant to damages. The AMCNO is pleased with the result in Jacques v. Manton.

The Jacques v. Manton case, dealt with evidence of “write-offs” and stemmed from a Lucas County trial in which the jury was able to consider only the higher amount that the medical providers billed, not the lower amount that was accepted as full payment. Both the trial judge and the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that evidence of the write-offs was barred under the state’s collateral source law. The Supreme Court disagreed, and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice O’Donnell said in the court’s opinion that the reasonable value of medical services was a matter for a jury to determine from all relevant evidence. Writing for the majority, Justice Terrence O’Donnell noted that in a similar case, Robinson v. Bates (2006), the Court had ruled that under the previous “common law collateral source rule,” a defendant could introduce evidence of write-offs that reduced a plaintiff’s medical bills. In this case, he observed, the pivotal question is whether the General Assembly’s enactment of the new rule under R.C. 2315.20 in April 2005 created a new standard.

O’Donnell noted that “both versions of the collateral-source rule are concerned with actual payments made by third parties to the benefit of the plaintiff, but the focus of the statute is to prevent a double-payment windfall for the plaintiff while the focus of the common-law rule was to prevent the defendant from escaping the full burden of his tortious conduct. Write-offs are amounts not paid by third parties, or anyone else, so permitting introduction of evidence of them allows the fact-finder to determine the actual amount of medical expenses incurred as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” O’Donnell was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert Cupp. Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented, stating that in his view the majority failed to apply the plain terms of R.C. 2315.20.

In addition, the AMCNO continues to strongly oppose legislation now before the Ohio legislature – HB 361 since this legislation is another attempt to change the current law. Under HB 361 any original billed charges for medical treatment would be presumed to be the reasonable value of those services. The AMCNO will continue to oppose this legislation. For a copy of the Ohio Supreme Court opinion go to:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-1838.pdf