The ruling of California Supreme Court is favorable for insurance companies
Recently, the California Supreme Court decided that victims of accident who brought suit for damages could just recover the amount negotiated between an insurer and healthcare providers. But it did not the actual costs for treatment billed. In Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Plaintiff Rebecca Howell would bring claim to seek compensation for injuries which was suffered by her after a Hamilton Meats truck struck her car.
Howell had undergone spinal fusion surgery and needed additional treatments and rehabilitation. The hospitals treating her would be submitted $189,978.63 in medical bills to her insurer. However, they approved to receive $59,691 instead. This compromise highlights a growing trend of health care providers which offered substantial discounts to insurers in exchange for continued business and prompt payments.
Essentially, the court decided that Howell should not be punished simply because her insurer negotiated a reduced payment. In the majority opinion, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar had explained that Howell was not entitled to the sums the hospitals initially charged because he did not suffer any economic loss. In dissent, Justice Joan Dempsey Klein stated that Howell’s insurance coverage gave an undue benefit so that Hamilton Meats would not pay the full cost of its negligence or wrongdoing.
Gary Simms as Howell’s lawyer believed that the ruling would cause reducing pain and suffering awards in addition to medical benefits, since it would make jurors knowing that accident victims had medical insurance. If you injured in an accident and get questions about how your insurer’s actions may influence how you may be compensated, an experienced personal injury attorney can help and suggest you.