Robinson v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 23 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the collateral-source rule allows plaintiffs to seek recovery of the reasonable value of medical services without consideration of [or offsets for] payments made on their behalf by insurance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riedel v. Akron Gen. Health Sys. · Butler v. Indiana Department of Insurance

2. “[Defendant] contends that the collateral source rule is not applicable to the present case because [plaintiff] is not, and never will be, legally obligated to pay those portions of his medical bills that were written off, nor were those amounts paid on his behalf. According to [defendant], the amounts written off by health care providers are not benefits derived from a collateral source, and to allow [plaintiff] to recover such amounts as damages in this tort action would create a double recovery or windfall in his favor. ... That argument overlooks the fundamental purpose of the [collateral source] rule, explained above, to prevent a tortfeasor from deriving any benefit from compensation or indemnity that an injured party has received from a collateral source. In other words, the focal point of the collateral source rule is not whether an injured party has “incurred” certain medical expenses. Rather, it is whether a tort victim has received benefits from a collateral source that cannot be used to reduce the amount of damages owed by a tortfeasor. [Plaintiff] is entitled to seek full compensation from [defendant]. Based on the cases cited above dealing with the collateral source rule, we conclude that [defendant] cannot deduct from that full eompen sation any part of the benefits [plaintiff] received from his contractual arrangement with his health insurance carrier, whether those benefits took the form of medical expense payments or amounts written off because of agreements ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

3. “Payments made or benefits conferred by other sources are known as collateral-source benefits. They do not have the effect of reducing the recovery against the defendant. The injured party’s net loss may have been reduced correspondingly, and to the extent that the defendant is required to pay the total amount there may be a double compensation for a part of the plaintiffs injury. But it is the position of the law that a benefit that is directed to the injured party should not be shifted so as to become a windfall for the tortfeasor. If the plaintiff was himself responsible for the benefit, as by maintaining his own insurance or by making advantageous employment arrangements, the law allows him to keep it for himself. If the benefit was a gift to the plaintiff from a third party or established for him by law, he should not be deprived of the advantage that it confers. The 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. One way of stating this conclusion is to say that it is the tortfeasor’s responsibility to compensate for all harm that he causes, not confined to the net loss that the injured party receives.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc.