Abstract
The collateral source rule holds that a plaintiff’s recovery should not be reduced by any benefits or payments conferred on him by a collateral source. Therefore, a plaintiff’s award cannot be reduced by any payments already conferred on him by, say, an insurance company. Although this rule is straightforward on its face, it becomes increasingly complicated when it involves a plaintiff seeking compensation for medical bills in a tort action. This is so because of the nature of the healthcare payment system in America, whereby insurance companies (and Governmental programs) “settle” bills for a substantially lower amount than the original bill. In such cases, the question becomes, is the plaintiff entitled to the amount originally billed, or only the lesser amount for which his bill was settled? This inquiry is further complicated when the plaintiff’s bills were settled by Medicare/Medicaid or were not paid at all (in the case of gratuitous medical services). In Wills v. Foster, the Illinois Supreme Court attempted to answer this question and reconcile years of inconsistent jurisprudence. While appropriately ruling that the collateral source rule does protect Medicare/Medicaid payments and basing its decision on sufficiently articulated grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court failed to adequately consider the important role played by subrogation rights in the collateral source rule analysis.
Recommended Citation
Ben Bridges,
Clarifying ‘King Arthur’s Court:’ Making Sense of the Collateral Source Rule in Illinois After Wills v. Foster, 892 N.E.2d 1018 (Ill. 2008).,
34
S. Ill. U. L.J.
747
(2010).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol34/iss3/8