Court of Appeal again affirms: Past medical bills paid in full satisfaction by Medicare are inadmissible. Certifies question to FL Supreme Court: Are past medical expenses barred as evidence of Medicare benefits for jury’s consideration?

Margaret Volin sued Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino for negligence after falling on the property and breaking her hip. Volin was allowed to introduce into evidence her gross medical bills that had been fully satisfied by Medicare, and the court ruled that any collateral source setoffs would be handled post-verdict. 

It is well established that Medicare's satisfaction of a medical bill, even if it is less than the amount billed, renders the medical bill inadmissible. The difference between the amount billed and the amount paid by Medicare remains inadmissible because Medicare has satisfied the entire medical bill for an agreed amount. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed that the gross amount the provider billed is inadmissible as evidence when Medicare satisfies the plaintiff's medical expenses for a lesser amount and that a trial court cannot setoff the difference between the amount billed and the amount Medicare paid.

As the issue of admissibility of Medicare payments related to past or future medical expenses arises frequently, the Fourth District Court of Appeal joined the Second District Court of Appeal's certified question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court:

Does the holding in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 176 so. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2015), prohibiting the introduction of evidence of Medicare benefits in a personal injury case for purposes of a jury's consideration of future medical expenses also apply to past medical expenses?

The Florida Supreme Court has not yet accepted jurisdiction. Accordingly, it remains to be seen whether this area of the law will be further clarified or continue to create confusion.
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}