Opinion ID: 1201234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Value of Mitchell's Free Medical Treatment

Text: Fortis argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the jury to consider the value of the free medical care Mitchell received from Hope Health. We disagree. The value of Mitchell's free medical care is relevant to the determination of damages because the collateral source rule provides that an award for damages should not be decreased if the plaintiff receives compensation for all or part of the damage from a collateral source. See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481, 579 S.E.2d 293 (2003) (holding that the proper measure of damages is the reasonable value of the medical services, even if the plaintiff receives the treatment free or at a discount). In this case, the value of Mitchell's free medical treatment is necessary to the determination of the amount of damage Fortis inflicted upon Mitchell in rescinding his policy.