Radvany v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 16 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Pjayments made by a collateral source. .. are not admissible in evidence....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Covington v. George · Leitinger v. DBart, Inc.

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 · from the majority
   e.g. Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

3. “The amounts accepted... represent amounts agreed upon pursuant to contractual negotiations undertaken in conjunction with [the plaintiffs] health insurance policy. Such negotiated amounts, presumably inuring to the benefit of the medical providers, the insurance carrier, and [the plaintiff], do not reflect the 'prevailing cost1 of those services to other patients.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leitinger v. DBart, Inc.