Missouri Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiffs on Medical Bills

Missouri Supreme Court Rules on the Value of Medical Expenses in Personal Injury Cases

The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Deck v. Teasley offers valuable insight into how courts handle the valuation of medical expenses in personal injury cases. This ruling underscores the importance of fair damage assessments, allowing plaintiffs to present all relevant evidence to establish their claims fully.

Background of the Case

In May 2003, a multi-car collision caused by Delmar Teasley left Edith Deck injured. Following the accident, Ms. Deck required surgery, physical therapy, and follow-up care. Her healthcare providers billed her $27,991.30 for treatment. However, after adjustments from Medicare, supplemental insurance, and out-of-pocket payments, the total amount paid was $9,904.28.

Ms. Deck filed a negligence lawsuit seeking compensation for her injuries, including past medical expenses. Before trial, Mr. Teasley argued that under section 490.715, only the amount paid for medical treatment should be presented as evidence of its value—not the amount billed.

Key Legal Issues

1. Valuing Medical Expenses: Should the value of medical treatment be limited to the amount paid, or can the billed amount be presented as evidence?
2. Rebuttable Presumption: Did Ms. Deck provide sufficient evidence to challenge the presumption under section 490.715 that the amount paid represents the value of medical care?
3. Future Medical Costs: Was the exclusion of testimony about potential future medical expenses justified?

Trial Court’s Rulings

At the trial level, the court applied the presumption in section 490.715 and limited the evidence of medical expenses to the amount actually paid or still owed by Ms. Deck. The court excluded testimony about unpaid bills that Ms. Deck was not obligated to pay and barred expert testimony regarding potential future medical expenses. The jury awarded Ms. Deck $42,500 in damages. Dissatisfied, Ms. Deck appealed the decision, claiming the trial court misapplied the law.

Missouri Supreme Court Decision

On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms. Deck on the issue of damages. The Court clarified how section 490.715, enacted in 2005, modifies the collateral source rule while maintaining fairness in damage assessments.

1. Rebutting the Presumption:
   • The Court emphasized that section 490.715.5 creates a rebuttable presumption that the amount paid to satisfy medical bills reflects the value of the treatment.
   • Ms. Deck presented substantial evidence, including testimony that billed amounts better reflect the value of medical services than amounts reimbursed by Medicare.
   • The Court found that Ms. Deck successfully rebutted the presumption and should have been allowed to introduce evidence of her total medical bills.
2. Future Medical Costs:
   • Testimony about future medical expenses, while sometimes uncertain, is crucial for assessing potential damages.
   • The trial court erred in excluding such testimony, as it could have helped the jury fully understand the scope of Ms. Deck’s injuries and ongoing treatment needs.

Statutory Interpretation of Section 490.715

The Court also analyzed the statutory framework of section 490.715 in detail.

• Subsection 5:
  This subsection allows parties to present evidence of the value of medical treatment rendered and creates a rebuttable presumption that the amount paid is the treatment’s value. However, plaintiffs can rebut this presumption by introducing additional evidence, such as:
  • The original medical bills (billed amount).
  • The amount paid for treatment.
  • Any outstanding medical bills the plaintiff is obligated to pay.
• Collateral Source Rule:
  The statute aligns with the common law collateral source rule, which prevents defendants from reducing their liability by introducing evidence of payments made by outside sources (e.g., insurance).

By limiting Ms. Deck’s evidence to the amount paid and excluding testimony on future treatment, the trial court failed to account for these provisions.

Outcome and Implications

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on damages and remanded the case for a new trial on that issue. The Court affirmed all other aspects of the trial court’s judgment, including liability.

This ruling highlights the need for courts to consider all relevant evidence when valuing medical expenses in personal injury cases. It ensures that plaintiffs like Ms. Deck can present a comprehensive picture of their damages, which includes both past and potential future costs.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

1. Missouri Supreme Court Rules on Fair Valuation: This decision emphasizes that plaintiffs can challenge the presumption that the amount paid for medical treatment represents its value.
2. Importance of Comprehensive Evidence: Plaintiffs should present all relevant evidence, including billed amounts and potential future costs, to fully substantiate their claims.
3. Navigating Legal Complexities: Cases involving the valuation of damages require careful navigation of statutory and common law principles, underscoring the value of experienced legal representation.

Overview of Section 490.715 and Rebuttable Presumption

Section 490.715.5 establishes a rebuttable presumption that the amount paid to satisfy a financial obligation to healthcare providers reflects the value of the medical treatment provided. This presumption shifts the burden to the opposing party, requiring them to present substantial evidence to challenge the presumed fact.

When a party rebuts the presumption with sufficient evidence, the case proceeds based on the evidence presented rather than relying on the presumption. However, the facts that initially supported the presumption remain part of the case and are weighed alongside any opposing evidence.

In Terminal Warehouses of St. Joseph, Inc. v. Reiners, the court clarified that a rebutted presumption disappears, leaving the fact-finder to resolve the case entirely on the evidence. This approach ensures decisions depend on the strength of the evidence rather than automatic assumptions.

How the Court Decides If a Presumption Is Rebutted

To rebut the presumption under Section 490.715.5, the trial judge must determine whether the opposing party presented substantial evidence to support a conclusion contrary to the presumption. Substantial evidence is defined as evidence with sufficient probative force that reasonable individuals could differ on the conclusion it establishes.

In Missouri, the term “substantial evidence” reflects evidence that genuinely supports the issue at hand. This standard requires more than minimal proof but does not demand absolute certainty. Cases such as Reiners and Wills v. Townes Cadillac-Oldsmobile have clarified the application of this standard.

Application of Section 490.715 in Deck v. Teasley

The Trial Court’s Determination

The trial court in Deck v. Teasley evaluated whether Ms. Deck presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption regarding the value of her medical treatment. The presumption initially held that the amount required to satisfy her healthcare obligations was the value of her treatment.

At the pretrial hearing, Ms. Deck argued that the billed amounts better represented the value of her medical treatment than the reduced amounts paid by Medicare. The court, however, ruled that she failed to rebut the presumption and limited the evidence to the amount paid, excluding the full billed amounts.

Key Witness Testimonies

1. Healthcare Provider Representatives
   • Christopher Bell, a customer care supervisor for St. John’s Health Care System (SJHCS), testified that the billed amounts for Ms. Deck’s treatment were both customary and reasonable. He emphasized that SJHCS sought to collect the full billed amount when pursuing outstanding payments.
   • Janie Mitchell, a reimbursement specialist for St. John’s Physicians and Clinics (SJPC), similarly stated that the billed amounts were fair and customary. She added that SJPC also pursued the full billed amounts rather than reduced Medicare reimbursements.
2. Healthcare Consultant
   • Gary Smith, a healthcare consultant and former executive at Cox Hospital, testified that Medicare reimbursements often fall below the actual cost of delivering medical services. He asserted that billed amounts better reflect the value of services, as Medicare rates exclude several factors, including the time and resources required for patient care.

These testimonies provided substantial evidence that the billed amounts were a more accurate reflection of the value of the services rendered to Ms. Deck.

Court Ruling on Rebuttal Evidence

1. Trial Court’s Decision: The court ruled against Ms. Deck, stating that she failed to rebut the presumption in section 490.715 that the amount paid by Medicare and other payers reflects the value of medical treatment. Consequently, the trial court only allowed evidence of these reimbursed amounts and did not allow the jury to consider the full billed amounts.
2. Evidence and Testimony:
   • Gary Smith’s Testimony: As a health care consultant, Mr. Smith argued that the reimbursement from Medicare is typically lower than the provider’s actual costs. He stated that it does not represent the value of services rendered, as it doesn’t account for factors such as time spent with patients or staffing costs. He testified that the full billed amount would be a more accurate reflection of the treatment’s value.
   • Dr. Shane Bennoch’s Testimony: Dr. Bennoch, a physician, similarly contended that the amount billed by the health care provider is a better indicator of the value of the services than the Medicare reimbursement.
3. Misapplication of the Law: The trial court erred by limiting the admissible evidence and ruling that the presumption was not rebutted. There was substantial evidence indicating that the full billed amount could represent the true value of the services provided. Therefore, the trial court improperly prevented the jury from hearing this evidence.
4. Legislative Intent: Mr. Teasley, representing the opposing party, argued that allowing Ms. Deck to rebut the presumption would result in a “windfall.” However, the rebuttable presumption in section 490.715 is meant to allow for the introduction of evidence that a figure other than what was actually paid could reflect the value of the services rendered, rather than solely relying on the amounts reimbursed by Medicare.
5. Role of the Court vs. Jury: The trial court misinterpreted its role by making a final determination on the value of medical treatment, rather than submitting the issue to the jury after determining whether the presumption was rebutted by substantial evidence. The presumption created by section 490.715 indicates that if rebutted, the jury should have the opportunity to weigh the evidence without the presumption influencing its decision.
6. Prejudice and Reversal: The court must now consider whether the exclusion of evidence regarding the full medical bills materially affected the case’s outcome. If the error is prejudicial, it may justify a reversal of the trial court’s decision.

This feedback points to a legal error in how the trial court applied the rebuttable presumption and how it handled the evidence on the value of medical services. The decision to limit the jury’s consideration and exclude substantial evidence may be grounds for appeal or reversal, depending on the prejudicial impact of this error.

In the present case, Ms. Deck proffered evidence that the value of the medical treatment rendered to her was $27,991.30. However, due to the trial court’s exclusion of that evidence, the jury only was permitted to hear evidence that the value of her medical treatment was $9,904.28, the amount that Ms. Deck, Medicare and supplemental insurance actually paid for the treatment after adjustments. The exclusion of evidence of the additional $18,087.02 in potential damages the jury should have been allowed to consider materially affected the merits of the action. See Accomac Realty Co. v. City of St. Louis, 152 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Mo.1941). Accordingly, the trial court’s exclusion of Ms. Deck’s evidence of the value of medical treatment was prejudicial. Ms. Deck is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages.

Professional Testimony Regarding the Cost of Future Medical Treatment

Ms. Deck contends that the trial court erred by excluding Dr. Bennoch’s testimony about the costs of her potential future medical treatment. She argues that testimony regarding her possible future condition and treatment helps the fact-finder assess the nature and extent of her injuries. While the case is being remanded, the Court does not need to decide whether excluding Dr. Bennoch’s testimony was reversible error. However, the Court briefly addresses the issue since it may arise again on remand.

Background on Dr. Bennoch’s Testimony

The testimony in question relates to the potential need for surgery on Ms. Deck’s injured shoulder. Dr. Bennoch recommended a repeat MRI and stated that if the MRI revealed further deterioration, he would suggest more extensive arthroscopic surgery. When asked about the surgery’s cost, Mr. Teasley’s attorney objected, arguing the question was speculative. Ms. Deck’s attorney countered that testimony about future medical treatment, even if dependent on care outcomes, is admissible. Despite this, the trial court ruled that Dr. Bennoch’s cost estimate was speculative because he could not confirm the surgery’s necessity.

During an offer of proof, Dr. Bennoch estimated that the surgery would cost between $15,000 and $20,000, with additional physical therapy expenses. On cross-examination, he clarified that the surgery’s necessity depended on the MRI results, making it a possibility rather than a certainty. Despite Ms. Deck’s efforts, the trial court denied the admission of this testimony.

Legal Framework for Future Testimony

Since the trial, Ms. Deck’s condition may have evolved, or new MRI scans may provide additional insights. If the same testimony is offered on remand, the trial court must evaluate it under the precedent set by Swartz v. Gale Webb Transp. Co., 215 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. banc 2007).

In Swartz, two physicians testified that the plaintiff had an increased risk of requiring future surgery. Neither physician could confirm with certainty that surgery would be necessary. One even described the need as “speculative.” Despite this, the Court deemed the testimony admissible to help establish the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s present injuries.

Application of the Swartz Decision

The Swartz Court distinguished between present injuries and future consequences. It allowed recovery for injuries not yet occurred only if they were reasonably certain to happen. However, the Court also held that expert testimony about an increased risk of future consequences could help the jury evaluate present injuries, even if those consequences were not reasonably certain.

On remand, the trial court must consider the principles from Swartz and similar cases when deciding whether to admit evidence regarding Ms. Deck’s potential future medical treatment.

Conclusion

Because Ms. Deck presented substantial evidence that her total medical bills represented the value of her medical treatment, she rebutted the presumption under section 490.715 that the dollar amount necessary to satisfy the obligation to her health care providers constituted the value of her medical treatment. Therefore, Ms. Deck should have been allowed to present evidence of the total amount of her medical bills to the jury. The trial court misapplied the law by refusing to admit evidence of the amount of Ms. Deck’s medical bills, and Ms. Deck was prejudiced by the trial court’s error. Accordingly, the portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding Ms. Deck damages is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to RSMo Supp.2009.

2. The legislative history of the bill indicates an unsuccessful attempt was made to prohibit the introduction of unpaid medical bills. HB 393, as originally introduced, would have amended section 490.715.5 to read:Parties may introduce evidence of the amount actually paid for medical treatment rendered to a party that was reasonable, necessary, and the proximate result of the negligence of any party. No party may introduce evidence of billing for an amount in excess of the amount actually paid for said medical treatment for which payment was made, and if no payment was made, then a party may only introduce evidence of the amount necessary to satisfy the financial obligation remaining to the health care provider.Section 490.715.5 of HB 393, 93rd Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo.2005) (unenacted).

3. Of particular significance is the Court’s discussion of Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 281, 283-84 (Mo. banc 1984) (testimony regarding cost of possible future surgery was admissible despite fact that expert testified that surgery was conditioned on failure of other treatment and was not reasonably certain).

All concur.

Contact Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident and need help navigating the complexities of Missouri’s legal system, including Missouri Supreme Court rules on damage valuation, Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers are here to help. We work tirelessly to ensure our clients receive fair compensation for their injuries.

Contact us today at (888) 550-4026 or visit our website at www.tysonmutrux.com for a free case investigation. Let us fight for you every step of the way.