Rose v. Via Christi Health System, Inc./St. Francis Campus, 276 Kan. 539

78 P.3d 798 (2003) · Supreme Court of Kansas · October 31, 2003 · No. No. 88,434

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kansas held that federal Medicare law preempted a trial court's order allowing Via Christi to offset its share of a negligence judgment by medical expenses written off under its Medicare agreement. The court also held that the collateral source rule applied to Medicare-paid and written-off medical expenses, affirming admission of the full medical expense evidence. The offset ruling was reversed, and the ruling on the cross-appeal was affirmed.

Holdings

  1. A health-care provider may not obtain a general offset against a tort judgment for Medicare-covered medical expenses that it was required to write off under its Medicare provider agreement.
  2. The collateral source rule applies to the portion of Via Christi's medical bills written off pursuant to its contract with Medicare; the plaintiff may recover damages based on the reasonable expense of treatment rather than only the amount actually paid by Medicare.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Via Christi to offset its share of the judgment by medical expenses written off pursuant to its Medicare provider agreement.
  2. Whether the Medicare statute preempted the trial court's offset ruling.
  3. Whether the collateral source rule permitted Rose to present evidence of the full reasonable medical expenses, including amounts written off under the Medicare agreement.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (30)

  • Mynatt v. Collis, 274 Kan. 850, 57 P.3d 513 (2002)(followed)
  • Carson v. Chevron Chemical Co., 6 Kan. App. 2d 776, 635 P.2d 1248 (1981)(followed)
  • Unwitting Victim v. C.S., 273 Kan. 937, 47 P.3d 392 (2002)(followed)
  • Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kansas v. Abbott Laboratories, 259 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2001)(quoted)
  • Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732, 822 P.2d 617 (1991)(followed)
  • Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602, 886 P.2d 869 (1994)(followed)
  • Holle v. Moline Public Hospital, 598 F. Supp. 1017 (C.D. Ill. 1984)(followed)
  • State v. Lumley, 266 Kan. 939, 976 P.2d 486 (1999)(followed)
  • Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663, 740 P.2d 1058 (1987)(followed)
  • Bates v. Hogg, 22 Kan. App. 2d 702, 921 P.2d 249, rev. denied, 260 Kan. 991 (1996)(limited)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…