Court Opinion

ID: 9853770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:54:10.587434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:05.339272
License: Public Domain

MINGE, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the opinion and decision but respectfully dissent with respect to that portion dealing with collateral source set-off. The record reflects that respondent’s medical bills were discounted as a result of contractual agreements between his healthcare providers and his healthcare insurer. Respondent was entitled to this discount as a function of his enrollment in a healthcare plan and the payment of pre*37miums. Such discounts are commonplace and often dramatic.
Reliance on Stout v. AMCO Ins. Co., 645 N.W.2d 108 (Minn.2002), is misplaced. That decision was based on claims under the No-Fault Act. Minn.Stat. §§ 65B.41-65B.71 (2004). The court was concerned that the no-fault insurer was dilatory in paying claims. 645 N.W.2d 108 at 111, 114. Our case arises under the collateral source statute. Minn.Stat. § 548.3 (2004). This court should not add to the surreal world of healthcare billing by giving the discounted portion of a bill asset status. I would limit recovery to what is payable. We cannot afford the luxury of windfalls.