collateral source rule in Hawaii

2024The collateral source rule states “that benefits or payments received on behalf of a plaintiff, from an independent source, will not diminish recovery from the wrongdoer.” Bynum, 106 Hawaiʻi at 86, 101 P.3d at 1154 .

2024Sure, Bynum adopted the collateral source rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. 106 Hawaiʻi at 86, 101 P.3d at 1154 .

2021"Under the collateral source rule, a 'tortfeasor is not entitled to have its liability reduced by benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]'" Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai#i Civil Rights Comm'n, 89 Hawai#i 269, 281, 971 P.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai#i 14, 18, 897 P.2d 941, 945 (1995)).

2004"Under the collateral source rule, a `tortfeasor is not entitled to have its liability reduced by benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]'" Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 89 Hawai'i 269, 281 , 971 P.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai'i 14, 18 , 897 P.2d 941, 945 (1995)).

2021"Under the collateral source rule, a 'tortfeasor is not entitled to have its liability reduced by benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]'" Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai#i Civil Rights Comm'n, 89 Hawai#i 269, 281, 971 P.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai#i 14, 18, 897 P.2d 941, 945 (1995)).

2004"Under the collateral source rule, a `tortfeasor is not entitled to have its liability reduced by benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]'" Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 89 Hawai'i 269, 281 , 971 P.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai'i 14, 18 , 897 P.2d 941, 945 (1995)).

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004Despite the dissent's attempt to limit Sam Teague, dissenting opinion at ___-___, 101 P.3d at 1167-1168 , this court expressly confirmed that under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff does recover additional compensation and arguably is placed in a position better than he or she would be in were the collateral source rule not applied, inasmuch as the wrongdoer should not profit from third party benefits. [17] From the references in the case, such benefits would include Medicare, Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 , and Medicaid, id. at 768 . [18] See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (

2004See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (Fla.App.1997) (relying on Florida damages statute, Section 768.21, which states that recovery for damages is permitted for ”[m]edical ... expenses due to the decedent’s injury ... that were paid by or an behalf of [a] decedent ”); Hanif 246 Cal.Rptr. at 195-97 (relying on Cal. Civ.Code § 3359, interpreting "reasonable value" as "a term of limitation, not aggrandizement,” and relying on Cal. Civ.Code § 1431.2(b)(1), interpreting medical expenses as "representing actual pecuniary loss’’); Nishiha-ma v. City & County of San Francisco, 93 Cal.App.4th

2004Despite the dissent's attempt to limit Sam Teague, dissenting opinion at ___-___, 101 P.3d at 1167-1168 , this court expressly confirmed that under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff does recover additional compensation and arguably is placed in a position better than he or she would be in were the collateral source rule not applied, inasmuch as the wrongdoer should not profit from third party benefits. [17] From the references in the case, such benefits would include Medicare, Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 , and Medicaid, id. at 768 . [18] See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (

2004Despite the dissent's attempt to limit Sam Teague, dissenting opinion at ___-___, 101 P.3d at 1167-1168 , this court expressly confirmed that under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff does recover additional compensation and arguably is placed in a position better than he or she would be in were the collateral source rule not applied, inasmuch as the wrongdoer should not profit from third party benefits. [17] From the references in the case, such benefits would include Medicare, Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 , and Medicaid, id. at 768 . [18] See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See Pryor v. Webber, 23 Ohio St.2d 104 , 263 N.E.2d 235, 240 (1970) (explaining that the great weight of authority is that the payment of wages, whether the result of a contract or simply a gratuity does not reduce the damages otherwise recoverable); see also Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 604 F.2d 990, 994 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that the collateral source rule applies even if payments are gratuitous).

2004See Pryor v. Webber, 23 Ohio St.2d 104 , 263 N.E.2d 235, 240 (1970) (explaining that the great weight of authority is that the payment of wages, whether the result of a contract or simply a gratuity does not reduce the damages otherwise recoverable); see also Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 604 F.2d 990, 994 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that the collateral source rule applies even if payments are gratuitous).

2004Ctr., 564 Pa. 156 , 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (relying on Restatement § 911 cmt. h (1977), which specifically references the reasonable exchange value of "services tortiously obtained by the defendant's fraud or duress, or for the value of services rendered in an attempt to mitigate damages"). [20] See McAmis v. Wallace, 980 F.Supp. 181, 185 (W.D.Va.1997)(mem.) (holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover amounts "written off" under Virginia law), no longer good law following decision in Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180 , 531 S.E.2d 316, 322-23 (2000) (holding that under Virginia law pla

2004Despite the dissent's attempt to limit Sam Teague, dissenting opinion at ___-___, 101 P.3d at 1167-1168 , this court expressly confirmed that under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff does recover additional compensation and arguably is placed in a position better than he or she would be in were the collateral source rule not applied, inasmuch as the wrongdoer should not profit from third party benefits. [17] From the references in the case, such benefits would include Medicare, Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 , and Medicaid, id. at 768 . [18] See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (

2004Despite the dissent's attempt to limit Sam Teague, dissenting opinion at ___-___, 101 P.3d at 1167-1168 , this court expressly confirmed that under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff does recover additional compensation and arguably is placed in a position better than he or she would be in were the collateral source rule not applied, inasmuch as the wrongdoer should not profit from third party benefits. [17] From the references in the case, such benefits would include Medicare, Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 , and Medicaid, id. at 768 . [18] See Horton v. Channing, 698 So.2d 865, 868-69 (

2004See Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767-69 (concluding that the collateral source rule allows recovery of the reasonable *1156 value of medical services without consideration of gratuitous medical services rendered or payments made by outside sources on the plaintiff's behalf).

2004Inasmuch as Medicare/Medicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiff's award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. [15] See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481 , 579 S.E.2d 293 , 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, "that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the col

2004See Pryor v. Webber, 23 Ohio St.2d 104 , 263 N.E.2d 235, 240 (1970) (explaining that the great weight of authority is that the payment of wages, whether the result of a contract or simply a gratuity does not reduce the damages otherwise recoverable); see also Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 604 F.2d 990, 994 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that the collateral source rule applies even if payments are gratuitous).

2004See Pryor v. Webber, 23 Ohio St.2d 104 , 263 N.E.2d 235, 240 (1970) (explaining that the great weight of authority is that the payment of wages, whether the result of a contract or simply a gratuity does not reduce the damages otherwise recoverable); see also Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 604 F.2d 990, 994 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that the collateral source rule applies even if payments are gratuitous).

2004Inasmuch as Medicare/Medicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiff's award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. [15] See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481 , 579 S.E.2d 293 , 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, "that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the col

2004See Haselden, 579 S.E.2d at 294 n. 3 (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the collateral source rule to medical expenses paid directly by Medicaid); Cates, 361 S.E.2d at 738 (explaining that Medicaid is "social legislation; it is the equivalent of health insurance for the needy" and "is an acceptable collateral source"); Thoreson, 201 N.W.2d at 752 (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and "is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the

2004Co., 48 Haw. 136, 142 , 395 P.2d 927, 930 (1964) (citing Kopp v. Home Mut.

2004Co., 48 Haw. 136, 142 , 395 P.2d 927, 930 (1964) (citing Kopp v. Home Mut.

2004Id. (quoting Wolfe v. Whipple, 112 Ill.App.2d 255 , 251 N.E.2d 77, 82 (1970)).

2004Id. (quoting Wolfe v. Whipple, 112 Ill.App.2d 255 , 251 N.E.2d 77, 82 (1970)).

2004Such cases have based their decisions on essentially two grounds: (1) no one incurs liability for any charges above the Medicare/Medicaid payments, [14] see Suhor v. Lagasse, 770 So.2d 422, 427 (La.Ct.App.2000); Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026, 1031 (La.Ct.App.2000); Hanif v. Housing Auth., 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 192, 195-97 (Ca.App.1988); Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526 , 81 P.3d 1236, 1239 (2003), and (2) because no consideration is exchanged, Medicare/Medicaid discounts are not "benefits of the bargain" received by beneficiaries as a result of obtaining Medicare/Medicaid insura

2004Such cases have based their decisions on essentially two grounds: (1) no one incurs liability for any charges above the Medicare/Medicaid payments, [14] see Suhor v. Lagasse, 770 So.2d 422, 427 (La.Ct.App.2000); Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026, 1031 (La.Ct.App.2000); Hanif v. Housing Auth., 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 192, 195-97 (Ca.App.1988); Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526 , 81 P.3d 1236, 1239 (2003), and (2) because no consideration is exchanged, Medicare/Medicaid discounts are not "benefits of the bargain" received by beneficiaries as a result of obtaining Medicare/Medicaid insura

2004Co., 56 Wis.2d 231 , 201 N.W.2d 745, 752 (Wis.1972) (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and "is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the state"); see also Restatement § 920A cmt. c (explaining that "social legislation benefits" are subject to the collateral source rule); cf. Sato, 79 Hawai'i at 18 , 897 P.2d at 945 (referring to the collateral source rule and HRS § 386-8 in prohibiting evidence of compensation benefits for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of the plaintiff's recovery).

2004Co., 56 Wis.2d 231 , 201 N.W.2d 745, 752 (Wis.1972) (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and "is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the state"); see also Restatement § 920A cmt. c (explaining that "social legislation benefits" are subject to the collateral source rule); cf. Sato, 79 Hawai'i at 18 , 897 P.2d at 945 (referring to the collateral source rule and HRS § 386-8 in prohibiting evidence of compensation benefits for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of the plaintiff's recovery).

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004See also Bates v. Hogg, [ 22 Kan.App.2d 702 ,] 921 P.2d 249, 253 (1996)(precluding application of the collateral source rule when the provider contracted with Medicaid), restricted by Rose v. [Via Christi Health System, Inc., 276 Kan. 539 ,] 78 P.3d 798, 803 (Kan.2003) (limiting Bates decision to Medicaid only); Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk, Ass'n, 802 So.2d 691, 714-15 (La.Ct.App.2001)(distinguishing Suhor, 770 So.2d 422 , and Terrell v. Nanda, 759 So.2d 1026 , and cases decided by the third and fifth Louisiana circuits as having been based on federal law, and concluding that the

2004Ctr., 564 Pa. 156 , 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (relying on Restatement § 911 cmt. h (1977), which specifically references the reasonable exchange value of "services tortiously obtained by the defendant's fraud or duress, or for the value of services rendered in an attempt to mitigate damages"). [20] See McAmis v. Wallace, 980 F.Supp. 181, 185 (W.D.Va.1997)(mem.) (holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover amounts "written off" under Virginia law), no longer good law following decision in Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180 , 531 S.E.2d 316, 322-23 (2000) (holding that under Virginia law pla

2004Ctr., 564 Pa. 156 , 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (relying on Restatement § 911 cmt. h (1977), which specifically references the reasonable exchange value of "services tortiously obtained by the defendant's fraud or duress, or for the value of services rendered in an attempt to mitigate damages"). [20] See McAmis v. Wallace, 980 F.Supp. 181, 185 (W.D.Va.1997)(mem.) (holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover amounts "written off" under Virginia law), no longer good law following decision in Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180 , 531 S.E.2d 316, 322-23 (2000) (holding that under Virginia law pla

2004Inasmuch as Medicare/Medicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiff's award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. [15] See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481 , 579 S.E.2d 293 , 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, "that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the col

2004Inasmuch as Medicare/Medicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiff's award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. [15] See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481 , 579 S.E.2d 293 , 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, "that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the col

2004Ctr., 564 Pa. 156 , 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (relying on Restatement § 911 cmt. h (1977), which specifically references the reasonable exchange value of "services tortiously obtained by the defendant's fraud or duress, or for the value of services rendered in an attempt to mitigate damages"). [20] See McAmis v. Wallace, 980 F.Supp. 181, 185 (W.D.Va.1997)(mem.) (holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover amounts "written off" under Virginia law), no longer good law following decision in Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180 , 531 S.E.2d 316, 322-23 (2000) (holding that under Virginia law pla

2004Ctr., 564 Pa. 156 , 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (relying on Restatement § 911 cmt. h (1977), which specifically references the reasonable exchange value of "services tortiously obtained by the defendant's fraud or duress, or for the value of services rendered in an attempt to mitigate damages"). [20] See McAmis v. Wallace, 980 F.Supp. 181, 185 (W.D.Va.1997)(mem.) (holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover amounts "written off" under Virginia law), no longer good law following decision in Acuar v. Letourneau, 260 Va. 180 , 531 S.E.2d 316, 322-23 (2000) (holding that under Virginia law pla

2004Inasmuch as Medicare/Medicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiff's award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. [15] See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481 , 579 S.E.2d 293 , 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, "that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the col

2004See Haselden, 579 S.E.2d at 294 n. 3 (holding that "the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments"); Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the collateral source rule to medical expenses paid directly by Medicaid); Cates, 361 S.E.2d at 738 (explaining that Medicaid is "social legislation; it is the equivalent of health insurance for the needy" and "is an acceptable collateral source"); Thoreson, 201 N.W.2d at 752 (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and "is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the