NO. 0 7 - 0 7 - 0 3 5 1 - CV I N T HE COUR T OF AP PE AL S FO R T H E SEVENTH D I ST R I C T OF T EXAS

AT A MARI LLO PA NEL D MARCH 5, 20 09

______________________________ GA I L I AT A T E , A P P E L L A NT

V. MI GU EL HER N AN D EZ, APPELLEE

_________________________________ F R O M TH E 9 9 D IS T R IC T C O U R T O F L U B B O C K C O U N T Y; TH NO. 2 0 0 6 - 5 3 3 , 7 9 0 ; HONO RA B L E B I L L S OW DE R, J UDGE

_______________________________ Be fore Q U I N N , C
. J. , and C AM PB EL L an d PI R TLE, JJ
. OP I NI ON “T o b e , o r n o t to b e . T h a t is th e q u e s tio n .”

W il li a m S h a k e s p e a re , H a m le t, ActI I I , sc ene i W hi l e p er hap s ov ers t at i ng t he s i gni f i c anc e o f i s s ues pres ent ed byt hi s c as e, t he ul t i m at e que s tion w e m u s t a n s w e r is th e r o le o f p e rs o n a l in ju ry liti g a tio n in o u r s o c ie ty . Is it to p u n is h t h e w ro n g d o e r o r to co m p e n s a te t h e in ju re d p a rty? T h a t is t h e q u e s tio n .See J ud ge R an dy W i l s on , “A n E nigm a S hro ud edin a P uzzle” , 71 Tex. B. J. 812 , November200 8, for 1 a di scussi on o f

some of t he i ssues su r r oundi ng i nt er pr et at i on o f sect i on 4 1. 0105 of

th e Texas Ci vi l Pr act i ce an d Rem edi es Code. 

### 2 Ap pel l ant , Gai l i a T at e, ap pea l s f r om a j udg m enten t ered a ft era j uryv er di c ti n a pers ona l i nj uryaut o a c c i den tc as e t hatc r eat es a c ons t r uc t i v e t r us tan d o r ders he rt o p ay s um s t o t he t r us t for t he ben ef i tof c ert ai n c r edi t ors of

A ppe l l ee, Mi gue l Her nan dez
. Rai s i ng f i v e i s s ues , T at e c ont end s t he t r i al c ourter r ed ( 1) i n a war di ng m edi c al bi l l s t hatha d b een d i sch a rge d i n ba n kru p t cy , ( 2 ) i n no tl i m i t i n g H e rna n d e z’ s re co ve ryo f m e d i ca l o r h e a l t h ca re ex pen s es t o a m oun t s ac t ual l ypa i d o ri nc ur r ed i n a c c or dan c e wi t h s ec t i on 41. 010 5 o f t he T ex as Ci v i l P r ac t i c e & Rem edi es Code , ( 3) i n e x er c i s i ng j ur i s di c t i on w he r e n o j ur i s di c t i on ex i s t ed byawardi ng j udg m enti n fav orof a non - party ; ( 4) by c r eat i ng a c ons t r uc t i v e t r us t , an d (5 ) b y a w a rd in g a tt o rn e y’ s fe e s in a p e rs o n a l i n ju ry l a w s u it.

“ An Eni gma Sh rouded in a P uzz le” 1 In 2 0 0 3 , th e 7 8 L e g is la tu re p a s s e d H o u s e B ill 4 w h ic h in c lu d e d a n a m e n d m e n t to th t he T exa s Ci vi l Pr act i ce an d R em ed i es C od e ad di ng sect i on 41. 01 05 , w hi ch si m pl yst at es: [i] n a d d iti o n t o a n y o th e r lim ita tio n u n d e r la w , r e c o v e ry o f m e d ic a l o r h e a lth c ar e e x pen s es i nc ur r ed i s l i m i t ed t o t he am oun t ac t ual l ypa i d o ri nc ur r ed byor o n b e h a lf o f th e cla im a n t. T e x . C iv
. P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 .0 1 0 5 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). T hi s an d s i m i l ars t at ut es hav e bee n ena c t ed nat i onwi de as a p artof t he phe nomena g e n e ri ca l l yr e ferre d t o as “ t o rtr e form
. ” Th e g e n e si s o f t h i s ty p e of paid o r inc ur r ed s ta tu teTex. R. App. P. 43. 3. 2 

### 3 has be en a d es i r e a m ong r efor m ers t o l i m i tt he s um s r ec ov er abl e b ypl ai nt i ffs i n p ers ona l i nj urycause s of act i on t o t ho se am ou nt s act ua l l ypai d byt he pl ai nt i ff or a col l at eral source i ns ur anc e c om pan y , t herebyel i m i nat i ng r ec ov eryform edi c al bi l l s t hatare u l t i m at el ywr i tt enof f or wr i tt en- down as a part of t he und er l y i ng i ns ur anc e s ett l em ent
. St at ed al t er nat i v el y , t he pur pos e o f

s i m i l ars t at ut es ha s be en t o l i m i tt he r ec ov eryi n a pers ona l i nj uryca us e o f ac t i on to t h o s e su m s n e c e s s a ry t o m a k e t h e in ju re d p a rtie s w h o le
. A lth o u g h t h e re a re fe w a p p e lla te d e c is io n s cla rify in g t h e m e a n in g o f th e Te x a s sta tu te i n t he cont extof a w r i t e-off or w r i t e-do w n of m ed i cal bi l l s i n con si de r at i on of i nsu r an ce pay m ent s , t here ar e n o a ppe l l at e d ec i s i ons r ev i ewi ng t he paid o r inc ur r ed prov i s i on i n t he c ont ex tof

a deb tdi s c harged i n b ank r upt c y . Accordi ngl y , we a r e s qua r el yfac ed wi t h t he uni que i s sue : I s a deb twhi c h h as be en di s c harged i n b ank r upt c y“ pai d o ri nc ur r ed” for pur pos es of

s ec t i on 41. 010 5 o f

t he T ex as Ci v i l Pr ac t i c es an d Remedi es Code ? Fi ndi ng t hat i ti s no t , we rev ers e t he j udg m entof t he t r i al c ourt bel ow and r end er t he j udg m entt he t r i al c ourts hou l d h av e rend er ed. 2I n acco r dance wi t h Rul e 34
. 6( c) of t he Texas Rul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedure, Tat e r equest ed a 3 r eport er ’ s r ecord l i m i t ed t o two post - t r i al hear i ngs hel d Apr i l 9, 2007 and June 29, 2007. Ther efor e, as st at ed her ei n, t he b ackground fact s ado pt ed b yt hi s Courtare t hose fact s t hatare un disp uted i n Tat e’ s and H ern an de z’ s bri efs
. See T ex . R. A pp . P. 3 8.2 (a)(1)(b). W hen an a ppel l antr equest s a part i al r eport er ’ s r ecord, t he p oi nt s ori ssues t o be pr esent ed o n ap peal ar e l i m i t ed t o t hose poi nt s ori ssues co nt ai ned i n t he st at ementof poi nt s ori ssues i ncl uded i n t he request
. Her e, Tat e’ s r equestfora part i al re port er ’ s re cor d st at ed t hatth e i ssues t o be pr esent ed on ap peal w er e as fol l ow s:

(1 ) w h e t h e r th e tria l c o u rte rr e d in a w a rd in g m e d ic a l b ills th a t h a d b e e n d is c h a rg e d in bankr upt cy and we r e no t“ act ual l ypai d ori ncur r ed” i n acco r dance wi t h sect i on 4 1. 0105 of t he T ex as C i v i l P rac ti c e a nd R em ed i es C od e; (2) whe the r the tri al c ou rt erred i n awa rding da m ag es to P l ainti ff’ s m ed i c al pro v i de rs, wh o we re notpart i es t o t he l aw sui t , had assert ed no cl ai m s agai nst Defendan t , had f i l ed [ no] pl eadi ngs i n t he l aw sui t , and overw hi ch t he t r i al courthad no j ur i sdi ct i on; ( 3) w het hert he t r i al courter r ed i n maki ng a de fac to a w a rd o fa t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s to P la in tiff’s at t or ney s w hen t her e wer e no pl eadi ngs, evi dence, orl egal [ basi s] t o sup portsuch an a wa r d; and ( 4) w het herPl ai nt i ff i s a “ successf ul part y ” and ent i t l ed t o recoverhi s cost s of courtw hen no rec ov ery wa s m ad e b ythe P l ainti ff. A l tho ug h n ot i de ntica l l yword ed , we fi nd T ate ’ s iss ue s , a s p res en ted , a re s ub s um ed wi thin an d th ere fore pr oper l yr ai sed b yt he st at ementof poi nt s or i ssues cont ai ned i n Tat e’ s r equest for a part i al r eport er ’ s r ecord.



### 4 Backg r oun d T he fac t s un der l y i ng t hi s ap pea l ar e notdi s put ed. On A pr i l 1, 20 05, Her nan dezf i l ed 3 a C h a pt er13 bank r upt cypet i t i on i n t he Un i t ed St at es Bankr upt cyCourtfort he N o rt h e rn Di s t r i c tof

T ex as , Lu bbo c kDi v i s i on. Si xm ont hs l at er , on Oc t obe r21 , Her nan dezwas in v o lv e d in a n a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t w ith Ta te w h e n Ta te ’s ve h ic le d rifte d in to H e rn a n d e z’s l an e o f t r af f i c , c ol l i ded wi t h Her nan dez ’ s v ehi c l e, an d c aus ed i tt o rol l m ul t i pl e t i m es. He r n a n d e z i n c u r r e d med i c a l b i l l s a s a r e s u l tof t h e i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d i n t h e ac c i d e n t
. On Nov em ber22 , t he ban k r up t cycourten t er ed an or derc onv ert i ng Her nan dez ’ s Chap t er13 ban k r upt c yproc eed i ng t o a Chap t er7 ban k r upt c yproc e e d i n g . I n t h a tp ro c eed i ng Her nan dez f i l ed a Debtor

sS tatem ent

in Com plianc e with Rule 1 019 w h e rein h e l i st e d his pe rso n a l i n j u ry c hos e i n a c t i on as an as s etac qu i r ed a ft ert he f i l i ng of hi s or i gi nal Chap t er13 pe t i t i on, bu tS e c tio n 3 4 8 o f t h e B a n k ru p tc y C o d e p ro v id e s th a t “p ro p e rt y o f t h e e s ta te in t h e c o n v e rt e d c a s e s h a ll 4 c o n s is t o f p ro p e rty of the es tate , as of the date of

f i ling the p etition, w h ic h re m a in s in th e p o s s e s s io n o f o r is un de r t he co ntrol of t he de bto r on th e d ate of co nv ers i on .” 11 U .S .C . § 34 8(f)( 1)(A ) ( em ph as i s ad de d). 

### 5 b e fo re t h e C h a p te r 7 co n v e rs io n . H e rn a n d e z’s sta te m e n t fu rth e r liste d ce rta in m e d ic a l b ill s owed t o L ak er i dge P r i m aryHeal t h C en t er , Cov ena ntMed i c al Cent er , P hy s i c al T herapyof Lub boc k , an d Lub bo ck Ph arm acyas deb t s i ncu r r ed aft er c on f i r m at i on butbefore conve r s i on. E a c h o f th o s e d e b ts w e re fo r m e d ic a l b ill s a ris in g o u t o f th e O c to b e r 2 1 a c c id e n t. st A lth o u g h d is c lo s e d to th e b a n k ru p tcy tru s te e , H e rn a n d e z’s p e rs o n a l i n ju ry ch o s e in ac t i on nev erbe c am e p r ope rtyof t he ban k r upt c yes t at e. T herefor e, on F ebr uary3, 20 06, 4 Her nan dezf i l ed t hi s s ui ts eek i ng damages forpe r s ona l i nj uri es s uf fer ed as a r es ul tof

t he a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t w ith T a te . A m o n g o th e r d a m a g e s , H e rn a n d e z s o u g h t re c o v e ry o f h is e xp e n se s for his pa stan d f u t u re m e d i ca l t rea t m e n t , i n cl u d i n g t h o se ex p e n s e s th a t w e re l i s t ed as di s c hargea bl e d ebt s i n h i s ba nk r upt c yproc eed i ng. O n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , th e b a n k ru p tcy c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r d is c h a rg in g H e rn a n d e z’s deb t s , i nc l udi ng hi s m edi c al bi l l s . A n a tt ac hm entt o t he Chapt er7 di s c harge or deri ndi c at ed t hatt he or derel i m i nat ed H er nan dez ’ s l ega l ob l i gat i on t o p ayan ydi s c harged de btan d p ro h ib ite d a n y a tt e m p t to co lle c t fr o m H e rn a n d e z a d e b t th a t w a s d is c h a rg e d
. Her nan dez ’ s pe r s ona l i nj uryac t i on was s ubs equ ent l yt r i ed t o a j ury , an d on Mar c h 2 7, 200 7, t he j uryr et ur ned a v er di c ti n fav orof Her nan dez
. T he j uryfoun d bot h Tat e a nd Her nan dezne gl i gen t , as s i gni ng 70% faul t t o T at e a nd 30% t o Her nan dez
. I n a no n- gl oba lJ u d g m e n t w a s e n te re d b y J
. B la ir C h e rry, J r. , S e n io r D is tr ic t J u d g e a c tin g b y a s s ig n m e n t. T e x . G o v ’t 5 C od e A nn . § 75 .00 2(a )( 3) (V ern on 20 05 ). 

### 6 i t e mi z e d s p e c i a l i s s u e , t h e j u rya wa r d e d H e r n a n d e z r e c o v e ryo f s p e c i f i c p a s tmed i c al exp en ses i n t he am ou ntof $9 , 03 5. 94 as fol l ow s: Lub boc kP har m ac y $ 12 0. 48 Ph y s i c i ans Networ kS erv i c es $ 46 3. 00 Cov ena ntHeal t h S y s t em $5, 028
. 46 Ph y s i c al T herapyS erv i c es of Lu bbo c k $2, 928
. 00 Lub boc kDi agn os t i c Radi ol ogy $ 49 6. 00 T ot al $9, 035
. 94 E a c h m e d ic a l p ro v id e r fo rw h ic h d a m a g e s w e re a w a rd e d , o th e r th a n L u b b o c kD ia g n o s tic R a d i o l o g y ($ 4 9 6
. 0 0 ), w a s l i st e d on H e rna n d e z’ s b a n kru p t cyf i l i n g . Th e j u rydid n o taw a rd H erna nd ez r eco veryof an yot he rdam ag es. Fo l l ow i ng tw o he ari ng s on da m ag es i ssues, t he t r i al cou rt en t ered j ud gm en t ag ai nst 5 T at e i n t he am oun tof $7, 017
. 92. T he j udg m ent r epres ent ed t he $9, 035
. 94 awar ded byt he j ury , l es s 30 % forHer nan dez ’ s ne gl i gen c e, pl us $6 92. 76 i n p r ej udg m enti n t e re s t
. I n a ddi t i on, t h e t r i a l c o u rto r d e r e d t h e f u n d s t o b e p l a c e d i n a “ c o n s t r u ct i ve t r u s t ” fo rt h e b e n e f i to f two hea l t h c ar e p r ov i ders ( Cov ena ntHeat h S y s t em –$2 , 111
. 95 and Ph y s i c al T herapyS erv i c esCo venantHeal t h Sy st em and Phy si cal Ther apyServi ces of Lub bock w er e no tpart i es t o t he 6 pro c ee ding s be l ow . Fu rtherm ore , t he ydid no t t ak e a ny ac ti on to co l l ec t t he i r bi l l s o th e r t ha n to ag ree wi th Her nande z ’ s coun sel t o acce ptt he su m s aw ar ded. I n l i ghtof t he d i scharge i n bankr upt cy , t he o t hermedi cal pr ovi ders ( i ncl udi ng t he credi t ornotnamed i n t he bankr upt cypet i t i on) woul d notagr ee t o acce ptanyport i on o f t he j ury ’ s aw ar d. 

### 7 of Lub bo ck–$1 , 02 4. 80) and H erna nd ez’ s at t orne y s ( G l ash ee n, Val l es & 6 D e H o y o s– $ 3 , 8 8 1
. 1 7 ). N o aw a rd w a s m a d e t o H e rna n d e z h i m se l f. Di scu ssi on I. Recover

abi lit y o f Damages “Di

sch ar ged ” in Bankruptcy Be fore de t erm i ni ng t he l i m i t at i on i m po sed bySect i on 41. 01 05 , t he f i r sti ssue w e m ust a d d re s s is w h e th e r m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s d is c h a rg e d in b a n k ru p tcy a re g e n e ra llyre c o v e ra b le i n a pe r s ona l i nj uryl aws ui t
. St at ed co nv ers el y , s hou l d a wr ong doe rr ec ei v e t he ben ef i tof a d is c h a rg e o f m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s in b a n k ru p tcy, w h e n co m p u tin g a n in ju re d p a rty’ s d a m a g e s ? T h is is th e b a n k ru p tcy e q u iv a le n t o f th e co lla te ra l so u rc e ru le
. T he “ c ol l at er al s our c e r ul e” i s a c om m on l aw r ul e t hat , i n part , pr ev ent s a wr ong doe r f r om be nef i tt i ng fr om a c ol l at er al s our c e o f di s c harge of

l i abi l i tyform edi c al ex pen s es i nde pen den t l yproc ur ed bya pa rt y , i ncl udi ng t he i nj ur ed party , no ti n p r i v i tywi t h t he w ro n g d o e r. M id -C e n tu ry In s . C o . v. K

id d, S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 4 & n.48 ( Te x. 19 9 9 ) ( c itin gB r o wn A m e ric a n T

ra n s fe r & S to ra g e C o ., 6 0 1 S .W .2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 4 -3 6 (T e x .1 9 8 0 ), c e r t
. d e n ied, 44 9 U
. S. 101 5 (1 9 8 0 ) ( ho l di ng t ha ta w r on gd oe rcann otr ece i ve cr ed i tfor i nsu r an ce in d e p e n d e n tlyp ro c u re d b y th e in ju re d p a rty. )) ; B la c k v. A m e ric a n B a n ke rsIn s . C o ., 47 8 S. W
. 2 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 8 ( T e x . 1 9 7 2 ) ( h o l d i n g h o s p i t a l e x p e n s e s e v e n t u a l l y p a i d b y Me d i c ar e o n

### 8

b e h a lf o f p la in tiff w e re re c o v e ra b le ); T a ylo r v. A m e ric a n Fa b rite c h , In c ., 13 2 S. W
. 3d 613 ( T ex . Ap p. –Hous t on [ 14 Di s t
. ] 20 04, pe t
. de ni ed) ( hol di ng t hatpa y m ent s m ade un deran th em pl oy ee ben ef i t pl an c ons t i t ut e a c ol l at er al s our c e as aga i ns t t he em pl oy er )
. W e f i nd t hat t he di s c harge of

m edi c al ex penses t hrou gh ba nk r upt c yi s ak i n t o t he di s c harge of an o b lig a ti o n b y a c o lla te ra l so u rc e . Se e D o d dv. L a n g , 71 Va
. Ci r . 23 5, 24 2- 43, 20 06 W L 22 57 16 0 (Va. C i r . C t
. 200 6) ( ho l di ng as a m at t er o f subst an t i ve t ortl aw , t he col l at eral source rule i n cl u d e s d e b t s d i sch a rge d i n ba n kru p t cy ). F u rt h e rm o re, w e dist i n g u i sh t h e co n ce p tof reco ve ryof da ma ge s f r om t he c onc ept o f d i sch a rge of d e b ts. F ro m a b a n k ru p tcy p e rs p e c tive , th e t e rm “d e b t” s im p lym e a n s li a b ili ty on a cl ai m , 1 1 U
. S. C. A. § 101 ( 12) , where a “ c l ai m ” i s t he r i ghtt o e i t herpa y m entoran e q u ita b le re m e d y, w h e th e r o r n o t s u c h rig h t is re d u c e d t o ju d g m e n t, fix e d , c o n tin g e n t, m a t u red , un m a t u red , dispu t e d , u n d i sp u t e d , se cu red , o r u n se cu red
. 1 1 U
. S
. C
. A
. § 1 0 1 (5). A deb t i s m er el ya s um of m one y owi ng t o one pers on f r om ano t her , i nc l udi ng noton l yt he o b lig a tio n o f th e d e b to r to p a y b u t th e r ig h t o f th e c re d ito r to re c e iv e a n d e n fo rc e p a ym e n t. Blac k’ s L a wD iction ary 482 ( 8 ed
. 20 04)
. Al t hou gh s om et i m es l oos el yus ed th i nt er c han gea bl y , de bt s ( owed byt he i nj ur ed partyt o a m edi c al prov i der ) an d d am age s ( owed byt he wr ong doe rt o t he i nj ur ed party ) ar e di s t i nc t l y di ffer ent c onc ept s . I n t he c ont ex tof t he in ju re d p a rty a s t h e b a n k ru p t p a rty, de bts a re d is c h a rg e a b le in b a n k ru p tcy; da ma ge s a re n o t. T herefor e, whene v er an i nj ur ed partyi nc urs m edi c al ex pen s es prox i m at el yc aus ed byt he t ort i ous c ond uc tof an ot her , oursy s t em of j ur i s pr ude nc e d oes no tt r ans ferl i abi l i tyfor t hos e d ebt s t o t he wr ong doe r . I ns t ead , ourj ur i s pr ude nc e al l ows t he i nj ur ed partyt o rec ov er

### 9

a ju d g m e n t a g a in s t th e w ro n g d o e r fo r th e a m o u n t o f a c tu a l dam age sprox i m at el yc aus ed by t he wr ong f ul c ond uc t
. I n a neg l i gen c e c as e s uc h as t hi s , a pl ai nt i ff i s pe r m i tt ed t o rec ov er dam age sforpa s tan d f ut ur e medi c al ex pen s es as c om pen s at i on fort he deb t i nc ur r ed. How t hatde bti s ul t i m at el ys ett l ed, ei t hert hroug h p ay m ent , grat ui ty , i ns ur anc e, wr i t e- down, wr i t eof f , orba nk r upt c yi s of no c ons equ enc e t o t he i s s ue of whet hert he pl ai nt i ff ha s be en d a m a g e d b y th e w ro n g d o e r. T h e d e b t is m e re lya n e v id e n tia ry e le m e n t o f th e p la in tiff’s da m ag es. Be cau se a de btfor m ed i cal expe nse s i s m erel yevi de nce of pl ai nt i ff ’ s dam ag es, once i nc ur r ed, t he s ubs equ ent di s c harge of t he deb t i n ban k r upt c y doe s no tprohi bi ta pl ai nt i ff f r om o ffe rin g p ro o f o f th o s e p a s t m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s a s e v id e n c e o f a c o m p o n e n t e le m e n t o f h is damages
. T he r efore , s ubj ec tt o f urt herl i m i t at i ons prov i ded byl aw, we f i nd a p l ai nt i ff m ay r ec ov er , as c om pen s at oryda m age s , t he r eas ona bl e a nd nec es s aryco stof m edi c al exp en ses proxi m at el ycause d byt he t ort i ou s c o n du ctof a w r on gd oe r , even i f t ho se ex pen s es w ere s ubs equ ent l ydi s c harged i n b ank r upt c y . Hav i ng det er m i ned t hat H e rn a n d e z’s re a s o n a b le a n d n e c e s s a ry m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s w e re re c o v e ra b le , w e o v e rr u le T at e’ s f i r s t i s s ue and proc eed t o add r es s her s ec ond i s s ue, t he l i m i t at i on i m pos ed bys ec t i on 41. 010 5 o f

t he T ex as Ci v i l P r ac t i c e a nd Rem edi es Code
. II . Li

m itation of

Reco ver

y o f Medical

o r Health Car

e E xpe nse s I f we beg i n wi t h t he pr em i s e t hatt he Leg i s l at ur e i nt end ed t o a c c om pl i s h s om et hi ng byt he en ac t m entof

se c t i on 41
. 010 5, t hen w e m us tappl yt hatpr ov i s i on i n s uc h a fas hi on as

### 10

t o a c c om pl i s h t hatpu r pos e. Few c as es ha v e s hed l i ghton t hatp ur pos e. T o d at e, t he l ea di ng case i s M illsv. Fle tch e r, 2 2 9 S .W .3 d 7 6 5 (T e x .A p p .– S a n A n to n io 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ). I n a pl ural i ty de ci si on , t he cou rt he l d t ha t sect i on 41
. 01 05 l i m i t ed a pl ai nt i ff ’ s r eco veryfor past m edi c al ex pen s es t o t he am oun t s “ ac t ual l ypa i d o ri nc ur r ed, ” t herebyprohi bi t i ng r ec ov eryof m edi c al orhe al t h c ar e e x pen s es t hatha d b een di s c oun t ed, ad j us t ed, orwr i tt en of f
. I n M i lls, t he defend antargue d t hatt he pl ai nt i ff ’ s r ec ov eryof pastm edi c al bi l l s s hou l d h av e b een re d u c e d be ca u se t h e m e d i ca l pro vi d e rs acc e p t e d l e sse r a m o u n t s fro m t h e plaint i ff’s in s u ra n c e ca rr ie r, th e re b y “w ritin g o ff” th e d iffe r e n c e . I d. at76 7. T he c ourtfoun d t hatt he la n g u a g e o f s e c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5 m a n ife s te d a n in te n t b y th e L e g is la tu re t o d iffe re n tia te a m o u n ts

“ ac t ual l yi nc ur r ed” f r om amount s m er el y“ i nc ur r ed, ” wi t h t he am oun tac t ual l yi nc ur r ed bei ng t hatsu m of

m one ynec es s aryt o c om pen s at e t he pl ai nt i ff fors um s ac t ual l yex pen ded byt he p la in ti ffo r h is in s u ra n c e ca rr ie r. Id
. a t7 6 8
. I n h e rd i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , J u s t i c e S t o n e t o ok i s s ue wi t h t he m aj or i ty ’ s t r eat m entof t he t er m “ i nc ur r ed” an d s he c al l ed i nt o q ues t i on t he c o u rt’s fin d in g t h a t th e p la in la n g u a g e o f s e c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5 s h o w e d th e L e g is la tu re ’s in te n t to a b rog a t e t h e co l l a t e ral so u rce ru le
. Id
. a t 7 7 1
. A c c o rd in g t o Ju s tice S to n e , th e m ajo rity opi ni on ac t ual l yr ewar ded t he wr ong doe rfort he i nj ur ed pa rty ’ s for es i ghti n o bt ai ni ng m edi c al in s u ra n c e . Id
. a t 7 7 2
. W hi l e dep art i ng s om ewhatf r om t he r at i ona l e o f t he M i lls dec i s i on as i tde al twi t h t he co l l a t e ral so u rce ru l e , t h e E a st l a n d C o u rtof Ap p e a l s h a s l i ke w i se he l d t h a tsu m s w ri tt e n off bya hea l t h care p r ovi derdo no tc ons t i t ut e a m oun t s “ ac t ual l yi nc ur r ed” forpu r pos es of a p p ly in g t h e li m ita tio n se t fo rth in se c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5
. M a tb o n , In c . v. G rie s , No. 11 - 06- 002 58-W e remai n con vi nced t hatapp l y i ng se ct i on 4 1. 0105 post - ver di ct , as a cap t o recoverabl e da m ages, 7 rem ains a s o u n d ju d ic ia l proc ed ure . M atb on , Inc . v. G ries , N o. 1 1-0 6-0 02 58 -C V , 20 09 W L 9 43 10 at *5 -6 (T e x .A pp .–E as tl an d J an . 15 , 20 09 , no pe t. h.) See also J ud ge G i s ela D . T ri an a-D oyal, Another Ta ke on “A c tua ll y P aid o r Inc urred ”

, 72 Tex. B. J. 16, January 2009, for argument s i n favor of a post - ver di ctapp l i cat i on of t he “ pai d ori ncur r ed” l i m i t at i on. 

### 11 CV, 20 09 W L 9 431 0 a t* 5- 6 ( T ex . Ap p. –E as t l and Ja n. 15, 20 09, no pe t
. h. ) ( hol di ng t hatt he c o lla te ra l so u rc e ru le w a s n o t e v is c e ra te d b y th e a d o p tio n o f s e c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5 ). In a n o th e r c a s e d e a lin g w ith se c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5 , th is C o u rt h e ld t h a t th e t ria l co u rt d id notab us e i t s di s c r et i on i n for m ul at i ng a proc edu r e fori m pl em ent at i on of t hats ec t i on t hroug h t h e i n t rod u ct i o n of p o st -j u d g m e n tt e st i m o n yr e g a rding m e d i ca l ex p e n se s t h a tw e re d is c o u n te d , w ritte n -d o w n , o r w ritte n -o ff
. Gor e v. Faye, 2 5 3 S .W .3 d 7 8 5 (T e x .A p p .–A m a rillo 200 8, no pet
. )
. I n G o re , t he proc edu r e fori m pl em ent at i on of s ec t i on 41. 010 5 was ati s s ue, n o tt h e i n t e rpre t a t i o n of t h e st a t u t e i t se l f. 7 W h ile t h e Te x a s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s y e t to w e ig h in d ire c tly o n t h e m a tt e r, in D a u g h te rs of

C h a rit y H e a lth Se rvice s o f

Wa co v. L in n sta e d te r, 22 6 S. W
. 3 d 40 9 ( Te x. 20 0 7 ), t he Courti ndi c at ed t hat i t di d fav or a t heo ryof j ur i s pr ude nc e t hatav oi ded a “ wi ndfal l ” t o t he i nj ur ed partyc r eat ed byt he di s c oun t ed di ffer enc e b etween a h os pi t al ’ s “ f ul l c harges ” an d t he am oun t s ac t ual l ypa i d b yt he i nj ur ed pa rty ’ s wor k ers ’ c om pen s at i on c ar r i er . I n d i s c us s i ng t he ex t entt o whi c h a ho s pi t al c oul d f i l e a l i en aga i ns ti t s p at i ent ’ s t ortc hos e i n a c t i on, t he C o u rt s a id , “[w ]e a g re e th a t a re c o v e ry o f m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s in [ th e fu ll u n d is c o u n te d a m o u n t] woul d b e a wi ndfal l ; as t he hos pi t al ha d n o c l ai m fort hes e a m oun t s ag ai ns tt he pat i ent s , t hey i n t u rn h a d n o claim fo r t h e m a g a i n st[ t h e w ron g d o e r]
. ” Id
. at41 2. W hi l e Linns taed ter d idT he qu es ti on of wh eth er a b an k rup t pa rty i s en ti tl ed to rec ov er compensation formedi cal expe nses 8 “ac tua l l yinc urred ” i s s ep ara te an d disti nc t from th e qu es ti on o f whe the r a ba nk rup t estate i s ent i t l ed t o recover t hose sam e da m ag es. W her e t he b ankr uptpart yw oul d no l ongerhave a l egal dutyt o pa yt he medi cal p ro v id e rs , t h e b a n k ru p t e s ta te w o u ld c o n tin u e t o o w e a d u ty to a ll c re d ito rs o f th e b a n k ru p t e s ta te . A c c o rd in g ly, we expr ess no opi ni on as t o wh et her or nota t r ust ee i n ba nkr upt cy , pursui ng a ban kr uptpart y ’ s chose i n act i on agai nst a tortfeasoron behal f of t he b ankr uptest at e, w oul d be ent i t l ed t o r ecoverdamages forpastmedi cal ex pe ns es . 

### 12 n o t d e a l w ith in te rp re ta tio n o f s e c tio n 4 1 .0 1 0 5 , it d o e s su p p o rt th e p o si t i o n t h a t c om pen s ation i s t he ul t i m at e p ur pos e o f ou rs y s t em of

j ur i s pr ude nc e. A l on g l i ne of

c as es ha v e h el d t hatt he pur pos e foral l owi ng t he r ec ov eryof ac t ual damages , al s o c al l ed “ c om pen s at oryda m age s , ” i s t o repa i ra wr ong ort o c om pen s at e t he in ju re d p la in tiff fo r a n in ju ry. C a vn a r v. Q u a lit y C o n tro l P a rkin g , In c ., 69 6 S
. W
. 2d 549 , 55 2 ( T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), mo dif

iedon o the r

groun ds, John son & H i gg ins, Inc. v. Ken ne co En ergy, 96 2 S .W .2 d 5 0 7 ( T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); W . K e e to n , e t a l., P ro s s e r a n d Ke e to n o n th e L a wo f T o rts§ 2 ( 5 th ed. 19 84)
. T herefor e, we f i nd t hatan i nt er pr et at i on of s ec t i on 41. 010 5 t hatl i m i t s an i nj ur ed p a rty’ s re c o v e ry o f m e d ic a l o r h e a lth ca re e x p e n s e s t o t h o s e a m o u n ts n e c e s s a ry t o c o m p e n s a te t h e in ju re d p a rty fo r s u m s “ a c tu a llyp a id o r in c u rr e d ” is co n s is te n t n o t o n lyw ith th e L e g is la tu r e ’s in te n t, b u t a ls o w ith o u rju r is p r u d e n tia l p h ilo s o p h y a n d h is to ry. B e c a u s e H e rn a n d e z’s m e d ic a l b ill s w e re d is c h a rg e d in b a n k ru p tcy, re c o v e ry o f s a id s um s byHer nan dezi s no tne c es s aryt o c o m p e n s a te hi m forhi s i nj ur i es . Forpu r pos es of 8 s e c t i o n 4 1
. 0 1 0 5 , t h o s e e x p e n s e s we r e n e i t h e rp a i d n o r“ a c t u a l l yi n c u r r e d
. ” A c c o r d i n g l y , we s us t ai n T at e’ s se c ond i s s ue. Be c aus e t he j ury ’ s awar d was l i m i t ed ex c l us i v el yt o s um s ei t her di scharge d i n ba nkrupt cyor w r i tt en - off byt he m ed i cal p r ovi de r , t he t r i al courtshou l d ha ve re n d e re d a t a k e -n o th in g ju d g m e n t.

### 13

Our di s pos i t i on of T at e’ s s ec ond i s s ue pr et er m i t s c ons i derat i on of herr em ai ni ng i ssu e s p e rt a i n i n g t o t h e ex e rci se of j u ri sd i ct i o n ov e r n o n -pa rt i e s, t h e i m p o s iti o n o f a c ons t r uc t i v e t r us t , an d t he d e f a c to aw ard of at t orne y ’ s fee s i n a persona l i nj urycase. Tex. R. A pp. P
. 47
. 1. Concl usi on W hi l e, i n t he be gi nni ng, w e pos t ul at ed t hatt he r ol e o f pe r s ona l i nj uryl i t i gat i on i n o ur s o c ie tym ig h t b e t h e u lti m a te q u e s tio n p re s e n te d b y th is a p p e a l, w e m u s t b e sa tisf ie d t o accep tt ha tt he answ er t o t ha tque st i on i s an un an sw erab l e en i gm a, notw i t hi n t he excl usi ve p rov i n ce of e i t h e r rea l m , co m p e n sa t i o n , or p u n i sh m e n t
. I n so m e i n st a n c e s d a m a g e s a re des i gne d s ol el y t o c om pen s at e t he i nj ur ed party ; whi l e i n ot hers , s ol el y t o pun i sh t he wr o n g d o e r . W i t h o u tc l e a rl e g i s l a t i v e d i r e c t i o n , t h e p a i d o ri n c u r r e d s t a t u t e , t h e c o l l a t e r al s o u rc e ru le , a n d t h e co u rts o f th is sta te a re , like H a m le t, d e s tin e d t o p e rp e tu a llyp o n d e r th e ir r ol e i n s oc i al fabr i c of ou rj ur i s pr ude nc e. W e r ev ers e t he t r i al co urt ’ s j udg m entan d rend er j udg m entt hatHer nan dezt ak e n ot hi ng.
P a tric kA
. P irtle Just i ce Q u in n , C .J., co n c u rr in g in re s u lt. Cam pbe l l , J
. , c onc ur r i ng. Pu bl i s h.