Close, but no Cigar: Issues with Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27 and the Collateral Source Rule

• Author: Andrew G. Jarreau
• Position: J.D./D.C.L., 2021. Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
• Pages: 363-402

Louisiana Law Review Louisiana Law Review

Volume 81

Number 1

Fall 2020

Article 14

12-11-2020

Close, but no Cigar: Issues with Louisiana Revised Statutes § Close, but no Cigar: Issues with Louisiana Revised Statutes §

9:2800.27 and the Collateral Source Rule 9:2800.27 and the Collateral Source Rule

Andrew G. Jarreau

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev

Repository Citation Repository Citation

Andrew G. Jarreau,

Close, but no Cigar: Issues with Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27 and the

Collateral Source Rule

, 81 La. L. Rev. (2020)

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol81/iss1/14

This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital

Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital

Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.

348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 359348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 359 12/2/20 7:03 AM12/2/20 7:03 AM

: Issues with Louisiana Revised Close, but No Cigar

Statutes § 9:2800.27 and the Collateral Source Rule

Andrew G. Jarreau*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.................................................................................. 356

I. Louisiana Tort Recovery & the Collateral Source Rule............... 361

A. Tort Recovery in Louisiana and Its Connection

with the Collateral Source Rule............................................. 361

B. The Collateral Source Rule in the United States ................... 363

1 General Development of the Collateral

Source Rule ..................................................................... 363

2. Other States’ Applications of the Collateral

Source Rule ..................................................................... 364

C. The Collateral Source Rule in Louisiana............................... 366

II. Bozeman v. State: The Beginning of a Restrictive Era................. 368

A. The Accident That Brought Change ...................................... 369

B. The Bozeman Court’s Multi-Jurisdictional

Analysis of the Collateral Source Rule.................................. 371

1. Reasonable Value of Services......................................... 371

2. Actual Amounts Paid ...................................................... 373

3. Benefit of the Bargain ..................................................... 374

C. The Result from Bozeman:

A Two-Pronged Inquiry......................................................... 375

D. You Get What You Pay For................................................... 376

1. Attorney-Negotiated Write-offs:

Not a Mode of Excessive Recovery ................................ 376

2. The Advantage of the Collateral Source

Rule and Workers’ Compensation .................................. 377

E. Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27:

A Step in the Right Direction ................................................ 379

III. One Step Forward and a Half Step Back...................................... 382

A. An Unpleasant Statute for Both Parties ................................. 382

Copyright 2020, by ANDREW G. JARREAU.

* J.D./D.C.L., 2021. Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

I would like to specially thank Professor Heidi Thompson for her guidance

throughout the writing process.

348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 360348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 360 12/2/20 7:03 AM12/2/20 7:03 AM

356 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 81

B. Phantom Charges, Real Money ............................................. 384

IV. A Few Changes to Make Everyone Happy .................................. 385

A. Fixing a Bad Compromise ..................................................... 386

B. A Change to Deflate Jury Verdicts........................................ 388

C. Application of the Proposed Statute ...................................... 389

1. Private Insurance Benefits............................................... 389

2. Attorney-Negotiated Write-Offs ..................................... 391

3. Self-Negotiated Write-Offs............................................. 392

Conclusion.................................................................................... 393

INTRODUCTION

On October 11, 2007, Dr. Maureen Jones arrived at the Paris Parker

Salon to receive a Swedish massage.1 Rather than leaving refreshed, Dr.

Jones left Paris Parker Salon with pain and discomfort in her lower back.2

By the following day, Dr. Jones’s pain had increased so significantly that

she sought immediate medical treatment.3 An MRI revealed that Dr. Jones

had suffered a ruptured disc in her lower back.4 After a failed attempt at

conservative treatment, she underwent surgery.5 Dr. Jones subsequently

filed suit against the salon, the masseuse, and the salon’s insurance

provider.6 At a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Dr. Jones, finding

that the masseuse breached the applicable standard of care and awarding

Dr. Jones damages in excess of $800,000.7

Despite the considerable award of damages, Dr. Jones never received

a bill for what the health care provider charged.8 Dr. Jones testified that

the Baton Rouge Clinic did not charge her for the services she received

there as a professional courtesy.9 The Louisiana First Circuit Court of

Appeal ruled, however, that Louisiana’s collateral source rule applied to

1. Johnson v. Neill Corp., No. 2015 CA 0430, 2015 WL 9464625, at *1 (La.

Ct. App. 1st Cir. Dec. 23, 2015).

2. Id.

3. Id.

4. Id.

5. Id.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. Id. at *2.

9. Id. at *10.