Court Opinion

ID: 9714356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:35:55.098125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:25.410973
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would reverse. I disagree that Peterson prohibits application of the collateral-source rule when the plaintiffs medical expenses were paid through Medicare or Medicaid. Peterson addressed whether a plaintiff could recover the value of medical services provided gratuitously by a philanthropic third party. In this case, the government paid the plaintiffs medical expenses because the plaintiff presumably could not afford private insurance. Considering the drastic changes in the health-insurance industry since Peterson was decided in 1979, this court should not extend the reasoning of the more than 25-year-old case. Rising health-insurance costs have forced more people to rely on the government to cover health expenses. The outcome of the majority’s decision is Medicare and Medicaid recipients, who lack the funds to acquire insurance, are placed at a disadvantage from those who are financially able to secure insurance. A plaintiff who can afford private insurance is unquestionably allowed a double recovery and may even receive more than what his insurance provider actually paid. See Arthur, 216 Ill. 2d 72, 833 N.E.2d 847. Further, our decision provides a benefit to the wrongdoer who injures an aid recipient because a tortfeasor who happens to injure such a plaintiff does not have to pay for the injuries that he caused. The majority finds that Arthur should not apply in this case. In Arthur, our supreme court focused on whether the plaintiff could establish the reasonable charge for services rendered even if that meant recovering more than her insurer actually paid. The court in Arthur noted that part of the justification for the collateral-source rule is that the “ ‘wrongdoer should not *** take advantage of contracts or other relations that may exist between the injured party and third persons.’ ” Arthur, 216 Ill. 2d at 79, 833 N.E.2d at 852, quoting Wilson, 131 Ill. 2d at 320, 546 N.E.2d at 530. The majority’s decision allows the tortfeasor to take advantage of the relation between the aid recipient and the government simply because the injured recipient cannot afford to acquire or bargain for insurance. A tortfeasor would be required to pay an injured plaintiffs medical expenses if that plaintiff is obliged to pay all of his expenses on his own. The tortfeasor should not be excused from paying simply because the government pays the needy plaintiffs medical expenses. When a windfall is inevitable, should the wrongdoer or the innocent and needy plaintiff receive that windfall? Because Arthur did not specifically overrule Peterson, the majority finds that we must continue to follow Peterson. In Peterson, though, the court addressed a case where an outside source generously agreed to provide medical service without cost. A Medicare or Medicaid recipient is not the lucky receiver of the generosity of some benevolent third party, but rather a needy person who did not have the ability or resources to acquire private insurance. When our supreme court in Peterson decided to exclude gratuities from the operation of the collateral-source rule, Illinois became one of only a few jurisdictions to apply such a limit. See Arthur, 216 Ill. 2d at 91, 833 N.E.2d at 858-59 (McMorrow, C.J., dissenting). While Arthur did not reassess its decision in Peterson, the court refused to further limit the operation of the collateral-source rule, suggesting the court’s movement away from extending the limit any further beyond the exclusion of gratuities. This court should not now extend Peterson to further limit the collateral-source rule to exclude Medicaid and Medicare recipients.