collateral source rule in South Dakota

2008While reiterating our settled law "that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable value of their medical services, and what constitutes a reasonable value for those services is a jury question[,]" we held that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare "write offs" such that the jury's determination of the reasonable value of medical services shall begin with the amount of medical service billed, before any Medicare "write off." Id. ¶ 78, 738 N.W.2d at 535 .

2008While reiterating our settled law “that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable value of their medical services, and what constitutes a reasonable value for those services is a jury question[,]” we held that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare “write offs” such that the jury’s determination of the reasonable value of medical services shall begin with the amount of medical service billed, before any Medicare “write off.” Id. ¶ 78, 738 N.W.2d at 535 .

2007Moore, 89 S.D. at 434 , 234 N.W.2d at 269 . [¶80.] Although the collateral source rule has a common law origin, and we have consistently applied the rule in a variety of tort cases, our Legislature has intervened to partially limit its scope with respect to medical malpractice “special” damages. 23 See SDCL 21-3-12.

2007Moore, 89 S.D. at 434 , 234 N.W.2d at 269 . [¶80.] Although the collateral source rule has a common law origin, and we have consistently applied the rule in a variety of tort cases, our Legislature has intervened to partially limit its scope with respect to medical malpractice “special” damages. 23 See SDCL 21-3-12.

2009In a special concurrence, then Chief Justice Miller explained: "Because [the plaintiff's] testimony was not shown to be false or misleading, no exception to the collateral source rule was warranted or worthy of consideration." Id. ¶ 36, 611 NW2d at 444 (Miller, C.J., concurring specially).

2009In a special concurrence, then Chief Justice Miller explained: “Because [the plaintiffs] testimony was not shown to be false or misleading, no exception to the collateral source rule was warranted or worthy of consideration.” Id. ¶ 36, 611 N.W.2d at 444 (Miller, C.J., concurring specially).

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007This is because “[t]he law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.” 19 Id. [¶ 72.] In accordance with the intent of the collateral source rule and section 920A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, multiple courts have further held that write offs are akin to gratuitous payments or are a benefit contracted for by the plaintiff through insurance coverage and are therefore recoverable. 20 The Kansas Supreme Court, in particular, compared Medicare to private insurance because “Medicare benefits are purc

2007Bozeman v. State, 879 So.2d 692, 699 (La.2004) (recognizing that Medicare and private insurance write offs are recoverable, but not Medicaid write offs); Esposito v. O’Hair, 886 A.2d 1197, 1204 (R.I.2005) (statute abrogating collateral source rule in medical malpractice cases does not apply to Medicaid). [¶ 68.] Applied as a rule of evidence, the collateral source rule prohibits defendants from offering proof of collateral source benefits received by the plaintiff, independent of the tortfeasor, which compensate the plaintiff, in whole or in part, for his or her injury.

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007This is because “[t]he law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.” 19 Id. [¶ 72.] In accordance with the intent of the collateral source rule and section 920A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, multiple courts have further held that write offs are akin to gratuitous payments or are a benefit contracted for by the plaintiff through insurance coverage and are therefore recoverable. 20 The Kansas Supreme Court, in particular, compared Medicare to private insurance because “Medicare benefits are purc

2007Bozeman v. State, 879 So.2d 692, 699 (La.2004) (recognizing that Medicare and private insurance write offs are recoverable, but not Medicaid write offs); Esposito v. O’Hair, 886 A.2d 1197, 1204 (R.I.2005) (statute abrogating collateral source rule in medical malpractice cases does not apply to Medicaid). [¶ 68.] Applied as a rule of evidence, the collateral source rule prohibits defendants from offering proof of collateral source benefits received by the plaintiff, independent of the tortfeasor, which compensate the plaintiff, in whole or in part, for his or her injury.

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Further, the court held that the collateral source rule was not implicated because no collateral source paid the “illusory ‘charge.’ ” Id.; see also Smithers v. C & G Custom Module Hauling, 172 F.Supp.2d 765, 777-78 ; Dyet, 81 P.3d at 1239-40 ; Kastick, 292 A.D.2d at 799 , 738 N.Y.S.2d 631 . [¶ 78.] In South Dakota, it is well settled that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable value of their medical services, and what constitutes a reasonable value for those services is a jury question.

2007This is because “[t]he law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.” 19 Id. [¶ 72.] In accordance with the intent of the collateral source rule and section 920A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, multiple courts have further held that write offs are akin to gratuitous payments or are a benefit contracted for by the plaintiff through insurance coverage and are therefore recoverable. 20 The Kansas Supreme Court, in particular, compared Medicare to private insurance because “Medicare benefits are purc

2007This is because “[t]he law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.” 19 Id. [¶ 72.] In accordance with the intent of the collateral source rule and section 920A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, multiple courts have further held that write offs are akin to gratuitous payments or are a benefit contracted for by the plaintiff through insurance coverage and are therefore recoverable. 20 The Kansas Supreme Court, in particular, compared Medicare to private insurance because “Medicare benefits are purc

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007Second, contrary to the collateral source rule, in a medical malpractice action, where a plaintiff seeks an award of special damages, the Legislature has made admissible evidence that “is relevant to prove that any such special damages were paid for or are payable by, in whole or in part, insurance which is not subject to subrogation and which was not purchased privately, in whole or part ... or were paid for, or are payable by, in whole or in part, state or federal governmental programs not subject to subrogation.” SDCL 21-3-12. [¶ 65.] In Knowles v. United States, we observed that by treatin

2007Second, contrary to the collateral source rule, in a medical malpractice action, where a plaintiff seeks an award of special damages, the Legislature has made admissible evidence that “is relevant to prove that any such special damages were paid for or are payable by, in whole or in part, insurance which is not subject to subrogation and which was not purchased privately, in whole or part ... or were paid for, or are payable by, in whole or in part, state or federal governmental programs not subject to subrogation.” SDCL 21-3-12. [¶ 65.] In Knowles v. United States, we observed that by treatin

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Calva-Cerqueira v. United States, 281 F.Supp.2d 279, 295-96 (D.D.C.2003) (“collateral source rule permits the plaintiff to recover all of his medical costs, regardless of any written-off amounts”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561 , 976 S.W.2d 382, 383 (1998) (“gratuitous or discounted medical services are a collateral source”); Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky.2005) (“Medicare benefits are governed by the collateral source rule”); Bozeman, 879 So.2d at 699 ; Esposito, 886 A.2d at 1199-203 ; Covington v. George, 359 S.C. 100 , 597 S.E.2d

2007Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai'i 81 , 101 P.3d 1149, 1155 (2004) (Medicare/Medicaid write offs are akin to gratuitous services and therefore recoverable); Arthur v. Catour, 345 Ill.App.3d 804 , 281 Ill.Dec. 243 , 803 N.E.2d 647, 650 (2004) (limiting recovery to amount paid “confers a significant benefit” to the defendant, “contrary to the collateral source” rule); Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 , 78 P.3d 798, 806 (2003) (“[b]ecause health care providers voluntarily contract with Medicare ... the benefit of the write-offs should be attributed to the Medicare participant rather

2007This is because “[t]he law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.” 19 Id. [¶ 72.] In accordance with the intent of the collateral source rule and section 920A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, multiple courts have further held that write offs are akin to gratuitous payments or are a benefit contracted for by the plaintiff through insurance coverage and are therefore recoverable. 20 The Kansas Supreme Court, in particular, compared Medicare to private insurance because “Medicare benefits are purc

2000It has been often stated that “[w]hen a party testifies about his or her financial condition in a false or misleading manner, ... he or she opens the door for the introduction of evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible under the collateral source rule.” See id. (citing Peters v. Pierce, 308 Ark. 60 , 823 S.W.2d 820 (1992); York v. Young, 271 Ark. 266 , 608 S.W.2d 20 (1980)). [¶38.] In Younts , Younts brought a products liability action against Baldor Electric Company because a defective motor in an exercise machine caused a fire that substantially damaged Younts tanning salon and exerci

2000It has been often stated that “[w]hen a party testifies about his or her financial condition in a false or misleading manner, ... he or she opens the door for the introduction of evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible under the collateral source rule.” See id. (citing Peters v. Pierce, 308 Ark. 60 , 823 S.W.2d 820 (1992); York v. Young, 271 Ark. 266 , 608 S.W.2d 20 (1980)). [¶38.] In Younts , Younts brought a products liability action against Baldor Electric Company because a defective motor in an exercise machine caused a fire that substantially damaged Younts tanning salon and exerci