REBECCA Howell was driving on the road, when suddenly, a truck carrying merchandise, slams into her when it made an ill-advised U-turn. She ended up having two surgeries to her neck. The surgeons had to scrape out tissue between her neck bones and drill screws and metal bars into her upper spine to hold her neck together.
Before the accident, Rebecca was a healthy and physically active person. She loved to surf and did so often. After the accident, she could not move one of her arms. She kept experiencing needle-like pain, fatigue, and numbness to her limbs. It took months and months of therapy, very, very hard work, and an enormous amount of patience and determination for her to deal with her physical pains and recover. How she dealt with her feelings of misery, helplessness, inadequacy, and various fears can only be imagined.
At the end of this struggle to put her body back together, Rebecca incurred almost $190,000 in medical bills. Luckily, she had health insurance, which paid for her care. Because her health insurer had pre-existing contracts with her medical providers, her insurer only paid the discounted amount of about $60,000 for all the bills.
In a lawsuit for damages against the truck company, she asked to be paid the full amount of medical expenses she incurred, i.e., $190,000, as part of her “economic” damages. However, the Supreme Court decided that she was entitled only to the $60,000 and not the nearly $190,000 amount of damages.
What happened to Rebecca Howell could happen to other seriously injured accident victims.
Well, you say, I still get paid, right? And that’s what health insurance is for – to pay my medical expenses. Yes, true. You got insurance, paid through your paycheck deductions. However, the system of insurance negotiated rates was to benefit you, who had the foresight to buy health insurance. It was not intended to benefit the careless driver who broke your neck. The practical result of the case of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., now the law in California, is to give the people who hurt you a discount in the damage amounts they owe you – all because you bought a health insurance.
The scenario is especially grim for persons who are members of health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Because of how HMOs work, it is possible that an HMO plan will end up paying a provider minimal costs for medical services rendered. If this is the case, the liable party can argue that because minimal payment was made on the injured party’s behalf, that therefore, the injured person’s damages should then be minimal.
The Howell ruling is also problematic because jurors often base or anchor the award of general damages from the economic damages. Economic damages in personal injury cases consist of medical expenses, as well as loss of earnings. On the other hand, general damages or non-economic damages include the loss of love, companionship or consortium, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support and the loss of training and guidance. It also includes the loss of enjoyment of life, the frustration and anxiety of not being able to pursue those activities that make one happy.
If the injured person was faced with a situation similar to Rebecca’s and, in addition, was not earning significant income, then the total economic damages are low. The result may be to deflate the value of general damages. For instance, if the economic damages are $5,000, some jurors may think that awarding $20,000 is enough. If the non-economic damages were catastrophic, the injured suffers from a lesser award.
The Howell case presents a greater challenge to injured persons and their attorneys to work harder and communicate better in evaluating the actual human losses. The injured person’s day to day struggle to live with his or her physical injuries must be told. A mother who cannot carry her own child because of a broken arm. A father who cannot teach his son how to ride a bike because the father is now confined to a wheelchair. The mother’s loss, the father’s pain – these human losses are more important than the price tag on medical costs.
Yes, the Howell case is a setback, but with a knowledgeable and empathetic lawyer fighting for his client, the injured person can still obtain a fair compensation within our legal system.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant results, including several million dollar recoveries for consumers against insurance companies and big business. He is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum—a prestigious group of trial lawyers whose membership is limited to those who have demonstrated exceptional skill, experience and excellence in advocacy. He has been featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements for his professional accomplishments and recipient of numerous awards from community and media organizations. His litigation practice concentrates in the following areas: serious personal injuries, wrongful death, insurance claims, unfair business practices, wage and hour (overtime) litigation. You can visit his website at www.joesayaslaw.com or contact his office by telephone at (818) 291-0088.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
