On April 28, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court rendered its decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., which will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects on the damages awarded in personal injury cases throughout Florida. 

Background Elaine Dial was injured in a trip-and-fall incident on property owned by Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc. At the time of her injury, Dial was covered by a private health insurance plan; however, she thereafter became eligible for Medicare. Both Dial and Calusa Palms, filed motions in limine concerning her past medical expenses. With regard to medical expenses processed by the plaintiff’s private health insurer, Calusa Palms agreed that the plaintiff could admit the full past medical expense amounts, even though they had been paid at the insurer’s discounted rates. With regard to the medical expenses processed by Medicare, however, Calusa Palms argued that the plaintiff should be permitted to admit only the amounts actually paid by Medicare. 

Dial argued that since she paid monthly premiums for Medicare, Medicare should be considered a collateral source and she should be able to admit as evidence the full amounts of her past medical expenses. The trial court granted Calusa Palms’s motion in limine and denied Dial’s motion. Under the court’s ruling and after factoring in the Medicare discounted amounts, Dial’s past medical expenses totaled $34,641.69. Had she been permitted to admit the full amounts, her past medical expenses would have totaled approximately $120,000. At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff the full $34,641.69 for past medical expenses, and the plaintiff’s appeal concerning the trial court’s ruling on the motions in limine followed. 

The Florida Supreme Court On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Medicare was a collateral source, although this premise is completely contrary to section 768.76(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The Second District Court of Appeals (DCA) affirmed the trial court’s ruling and certified the following question of great public importance: 

DOES THE HOLDING IN JOERG V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., 176 SO. 3D 690 (FLA. 2015), PROHIBIT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF MEDICARE BENEFITS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF A JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES ALSO APPLY TO PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES? 

Fortunately, when the Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, it also explicitly approved the Second DCA’s decision in Dial. The Florida Supreme Court cited the Second DCA’s decision in Cooperative Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson, 872 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), for its holding “that the appropriate measure of compensatory damages for past medical expenses when a plaintiff has received Medicare benefits does not include the difference between the amount that the Medicare providers agreed to accept and the total amount of the plaintiff’s medical bills.” 

In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court appears to have standardized the way that past medical expenses should be handled in courts throughout the state. 

Summary This ruling should universally limit personal injury plaintiffs to introducing only the discounted amounts Medicare paid. Prohibiting plaintiffs from introducing the full amount of the bills, the majority of which they were never obligated to pay, is the only fair way to deal with this issue as it relates to Medicare. This decision will hopefully assist in cutting down on pricey settlements, exorbitant jury verdicts and the plethora of attorney advertising billboards gracing Florida’s roadways.

Molly J. Durso has devoted her legal career to defending personal injury and wrongful death claims. Her defense practice includes claims of medical negligence, long-term care facility/nursing home negligence, wrongful death, automobile negligence and premises liability Molly’s clients include insurance companies, government entities, private companies and individuals in civil lawsuits regarding medical negligence, wrongful death, bodily injury and insurance disputes. Molly also has experience handling first-party property insurance claims. 

Noelle Sheehan focuses her practice on complex civil litigation matters from outset to conclusion in state and federal courts involving insurance and general liability defense of matters including personal injury, premises liability, product liability, wrongful death, automobile liability, negligent security, contract disputes, indemnification disputes, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, nursing home negligence and medical malpractice. She also handles cannabis law matters. In addition, Noelle is a Florida Supreme Court Qualified Arbitrator. 

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.