collateral source rule in Louisiana

2004Co., 520 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987), we held the collateral source rule applies to Medicare payments.

2003Co., 520 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987), we held the collateral source rule applies to Medicare payments.

2025Co., 14-2279 (La. 10/2/15), 209 So. 3d 702 , the court considered attorney-negotiated discounts and payments, plainly stating: We adopt a bright-line rule that such attorney-negotiated discounts do not fall within the ambit of the collateral source rule because to do otherwise would invite a variety of evidentiary and ethical dilemmas for counsel.

2021Co., our Supreme Court declined to apply the collateral source rule to an attorney-negotiated medical discount. 14-2279 (La. 10/2/15), 209 So.3d 702 .

2018Inc. , 406 So.2d 767 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981), judgment affirmed, 414 So.2d 322 (La.1982), and recognized that the collateral source rule did apply, not only where the plaintiff directly purchased insurance against which the plaintiff recovered, but also where the plaintiff received benefits from gratuitous sources such as Medicaid payments.

2000For other applications of the collateral source rule see Bryant v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 406 So.2d 767, 768 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), writ granted, 410 So.2d 761 (La.1982), affirmed, 414 So.2d 322 (La.1982).

2004The seminal case of Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), expresses the Louisiana Supreme Court's acceptance of the collateral source rule." Also, Kansas City Southern Ry., 846 So.2d 734, 739 (2003).

2004The seminal case of Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), expresses the Louisiana Supreme Court's acceptance of the collateral source rule." Also, Kansas City Southern Ry., 846 So.2d 734, 739 (2003).

2004For example, in Terrell v. Nanda , 33,242-CA (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/10/00), 759 So.2d 1026, 1028 , plaintiffs argued that under the collateral source rule they were entitled to contractually adjusted medical expenses.

2004Such expenses are not damages incurred by the plaintiff and are not subject to recovery by application of the collateral source rule." Terrell v. Nanda, supra, 759 So.2d at 1031 .

2024Francis, 1995-1241, pp. 9-10, 671 So.2d at 1047-48 .

1999As discussed earlier, the collateral source rule provides that a "`tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiff's tort recovery may not be diminished, because of benefits received by the plaintiff from sources independent of the tortfeasor's procuration or contribution.'" Francis, 95-1241, p. 7; 671 So.2d at 1046 .

2022We find this case most similar to Villa and are persuaded by its analysis: More recently, in Royer v. State Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 210 So.3d at 910 , this court, in addressing whether the collateral source rule applied to the payment of workers’ compensation benefits from an employer to an employee for damages sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, held: If the primary goal of the collateral source rule is tort deterrence, the collateral source rule applies to a tortfeasor, even if consideration, in the form of policy payments, i

2018More recently, in Royer v. State Dep't of Transp. & Dev. , 210 So.3d at 910 , this court, in addressing whether the collateral source rule applied to the payment of workers' compensation benefits from an employer to an employee for damages sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, held: If the primary goal of the collateral source rule is tort deterrence, the collateral source rule applies to a tortfeasor, even if consideration, in the form of policy payments, is non-existent, as will always be the case when a workers' compensation ca

2015Sheriff’s Auto Risk Ass’n, 99-2944 (La.App. 1 Cm. 6/22/01), 802 So.2d 691, 715 , unit denied, 01-2117 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 376 , wherein the First Circuit held that the collateral source rule is applicable to contractual write-offs procured by private insurance companies.

2010The court agreed with and cited Griffin v. The Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk Assoc., 99-2944, p. 37 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 802 So.2d 691, 715 , writ denied, 01-2117 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 376 , which stated that the proper focus of the inquiry is "on the nature of the write-offs vis-a-vis the tortfeasor, rather than vis-a-vis the tort victim." The Griffin court reasoned that the existence or non-existence of an underlying obligation cannot form the basis for applying the collateral source rule to write-offs because the result is a diminution of the tortfeasor's liability vis-a-vis an insur

2007Sutton v. Lambert, 94-2301, p. 14 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/95), 657 So.2d 697, 706 , writ denied, 95-1859 (La.11/3/95), 661 So.2d 1384 .

2007Moreover, although defendants argue that Allstate was legally subrogated to Ms. Rogers after paying her collision damages (which would have precluded the application of the collateral source rule — See Sutton v. Lambert, 94-2301, p. 15 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/95), 657 So.2d 697, 706 , writ denied, 95-1859 (La.11/3/95), 661 So.2d 1384 ), we note there is no evidence in the record that Allstate, in its capacity as Ms. Rogers’ collision carrier, had any right of subrogation in this case.

2004We find the appellant's argument clearly supported by the jurisprudence and order the award for medical expenses increased to $6,617.08." Trueman v. City of Alexandria, 01-1130, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/15/02), 818 So.2d 1021, 1026 , writ granted, 02-2166 (La.11/15/02), 829 So.2d 410 .

2002In Trueman v. City of Alexandria, 01-1130 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/15/02) , 818 So.2d 1021 , we held that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare payments.

2004Inc, 406 So.2d 767, 768 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), the court opined the following: The collateral source rule has been held to apply not only where plaintiff directly purchased insurance against which the plaintiff recovered, but also where there have been Medicare payments— Womack v. Travelers Insurance Co., 258 So.2d 562 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1972); sick leave and annual leave payments— Dunlap v. Armendariz, 265 So.2d 352 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1972); retirement pension payments— Adam v. Schultz, 250 So.2d 811 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1971); free medical services rendered as a professional courtesy— Spizer

1982The collateral source rule has been held to apply not only where plaintiff directly purchased insurance against which the plaintiff recovered, but also where there have been Medicare payments— Womack v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 258 So.2d 562 (La.

2004Inc, 406 So.2d 767, 768 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), the court opined the following: The collateral source rule has been held to apply not only where plaintiff directly purchased insurance against which the plaintiff recovered, but also where there have been Medicare payments— Womack v. Travelers Insurance Co., 258 So.2d 562 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1972); sick leave and annual leave payments— Dunlap v. Armendariz, 265 So.2d 352 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1972); retirement pension payments— Adam v. Schultz, 250 So.2d 811 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1971); free medical services rendered as a professional courtesy— Spizer

1982In Spizer v. Dixie Brewing Co., 210 So.2d 528 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1968), a doctor’s services were provided as a professional courtesy with no intention of receiving payment.

2003In Kozina v. Zeagler, 94-413 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/29/94) , 646 So.2d 1217 , the fifth circuit also allowed a plaintiff to recover the write-offs from Medicare payments; however, this ruling was based on a compromise settlement in which the tortfeasor defendant agreed to pay its victim the full amount of medical bills, specifically including the difference between the total medicals billed and the amount paid by Medicare.

2001In Kozina v. Zeagler, 94-413 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/29/94), 646 So.2d 1217 , the fifth circuit also allowed a plaintiff to recover the write-offs from Medicare payments; however, this ruling was based on a compromise settlement in which the tortfeasor defendant agreed to pay its victim the full amount of medical bills, specifically including the difference between the total medicals billed and the amount paid by Medicare. [5] In Terrell v. Nanda, 33,242 (La.App. 2nd Cir.5/10/00), 759 So.2d 1026 , the second circuit concluded that the collateral source rule does not allow recovery of expenses in e

1989The collateral source rule is explained in Hall v. State, Department of Highways, 213 So.2d 169, 175 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1968), writ refused 252 La. 959 , 215 So.2d 128 (La.1968), as follows: While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, ... [Citations omitted.] See also Lofton v. Whimper, 425 So.2d 1307

1982As stated by the Third Circuit, Judge Tate as *768 organ of the court, in Hall v. State Dept. of Hwys., 213 So.2d 169 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968), writ refused, 252 La. 959 , 215 So.2d 128 , the collateral source rule provides: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at 140 So.2d 16 ;

1989The collateral source rule is explained in Hall v. State, Department of Highways, 213 So.2d 169, 175 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1968), writ refused 252 La. 959 , 215 So.2d 128 (La.1968), as follows: While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, ... [Citations omitted.] See also Lofton v. Whimper, 425 So.2d 1307

1982As stated by the Third Circuit, Judge Tate as *768 organ of the court, in Hall v. State Dept. of Hwys., 213 So.2d 169 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968), writ refused, 252 La. 959 , 215 So.2d 128 , the collateral source rule provides: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at 140 So.2d 16 ;

1982As stated by the Third Circuit, Judge Tate as *768 organ of the court, in Hall v. State Dept. of Hwys., 213 So.2d 169 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968), writ refused, 252 La. 959 , 215 So.2d 128 , the collateral source rule provides: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at 140 So.2d 16 ;

1980In Hall v. State Department of Highways, 213 So.2d 169, 175 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968) we noted the applicability of the collateral source rule as follows: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, 242 La. 943 , 140 So.2d 11 (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of (sic) other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at 140 So.2d 16 ; American Indemnity Co. v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, I

2025Id.

2020Id.

2018Co. , 352 So.2d 1048 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977) ): [U]nder the collateral source rule in an action in tort by an injured employee against a third-party tort-feasor, where the tort-feasor is established and the employer does not intervene for reimbursement of compensation benefits paid, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of damages sustained by him without deduction of the amounts he has received from his employer as compensation benefits.

1980Co., 352 So.2d 1048 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1977), writ denied, 354 So.2d 209 (La.1978).