Opinion ID: 3162773
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: NRH Asserts The Trial Court Erred In Calculating Damages.

Text: ¶33 The trial court found Ms. Gowens' total damages to be $263,682.00 which included $131,841.84 in medical expenses. Ms. Gowens was also found to be 20% contributorily negligent. In its Modified Journal Entry the trial court reduced judgment to the $125,000.00 GTCA cap. NRH asserted it had made $46,382.88 in Medicaid write-offs that should be credited against the $125,000.00 cap. It asserted such write-offs are not subject to the collateral source rule 11 and should be considered payments made by a tort-feasor to the injured party. 12 ¶34 The parties do not cite any decisions of this Court concerning whether or not Medicaid write-offs are considered a collateral source. Ms. Gowens' attorneys point out that some other jurisdictions 13 treat Medicaid write-offs as a collateral source. It was further pointed out that after this case was commenced, changes to Oklahoma law (12 O.S. 2011, § 3009.1) allow only actual amounts paid for any doctor bills to be admissible at trial. 14 However, we need not decide today whether Medicaid write-offs made in cases filed prior to 12 O.S. 2011, § 3009.1 are a collateral source. The dispositive issue is from what source would such write-offs be credited; NRH's portion of the total damages or the GTCA cap. ¶35 In Thomas v. City of Tulsa , 1988 OK 138, 766 P.2d 339, Thomas sued the City of Tulsa (Tulsa) for injuries she sustained from actions of Tulsa's employees. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Thomas and awarded her damages. It determined the total damages to be in the amount of $60.000.00 and found Tulsa was 60% contributorily negligent. Tulsa moved to have its contributory negligence calculated on the GTCA cap rather than total damages. The GTCA cap at the time of this case was $50,000.00. Tulsa argued its damages should be $30,000.00 which is 60% of the $50,000.00 cap rather than $36,000.00 which is 60% of the $60,000.00 total damages. The trial court overruled Tulsa's motion and Tulsa appealed. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Tulsa and reversed the trial court's order. On certiorari we vacated the appellate court's decision and affirmed the trial court. We determined that there was nothing in the GTCA from which we can infer, in a contributory negligence case, that plaintiff's recovery is limited to only a percentage of the cap. We held plaintiff is entitled to recover a percentage of total recovery up to the then-applicable statutory cap of $50,000.00. ¶36 In the present case, if we were to deduct the $46,382.88 from the damages attributed to NRH the amount would still exceed the $125,000.00 GTCA cap. Pursuant to Thomas , there would be no reduction in damages from the cap and the damages would therefore be equal to $125,000.00. We do not find the trial court made any error in its calculation.