This Note argues that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the collateral source rule, as applied to health insurance reimbursement, is outdated and is more harmful than beneficial. Part I provides an overview of the notion of compensation in negligence cases and explains the origins and purpose of the collateral source rule. Part II discusses the reasons for the discrepancy between medical bills and insurance write-offs, and their application in Law v. Griffith. Part III touches upon the current tendency toward abrogation of the collateral source rule in various other states. Part IV discusses what makes Massachusetts unique with regard to health insurance. Part V analyzes the shortcomings of the collateral source rule. The Author proposes that the state legislature abrogate the rule as applied to medical payments by health insurance companies, and make such evidence available at trial.
Tsvetelina Gerova-Wilson, TORT AND EVIDENCE LAW—A SPHINX WITHOUT A SECRET: THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE AND MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE IN MASSACHUSETTS, 34 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 619 (2012), http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol34/iss2/12